|
For the past 20 years, The Filipino Express has provided the Filipino American community the best news, arts and entertainment coverage from around the United States and the Philippines.
|
|
This website includes selected articles from this week's edition of the Filipino Express. Not all the stories published in the printed version appear on this site.
|
|
|
|
To tell us what you think about Filipino Express Online or to comment on the stories published here, E-mail us at Filexpress@aol.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
The myth of Enforcement-First
|
|
|
|
REPUBLICAN members of the House of Representatives last week began a series of hearings on immigration policy. Almost simultaneously, President Bush was reportedly flip-flopping, signaling his willingness to compromise with his anti-immigration partymates.
The compromise would center on “enforcement-first”: improve border security, as a majority of House Republicans want, and only then move on to the guest-worker program and legalization for illegal immigrants that Bush favors and that was approved by the Senate.
The problem is that this “enforcement-first” approach might degenerate into “enforcement-only.” An enforcement-based immigration policy should go hand-in-hand with a path to legalization, they should go as part of a single, comprehensive legislative package.
It should abe stressed that the timetable for implementing the path to citizenship component of the legislative reform should not depend on conditions that will never be met. At this point, what the House Republicans want is for the enforcement of tough border security first, and implement the legalization and guest worker parts only after the enforcement component has been successfully laid out.
That’s not practical. It’s bad enough when the legalization part of the package is made to wait for a year or two while the administration beefs up border patrols and workplace inspections. It’s worse when the timetable for the legalization part is dependent on the success of the enforcement aspect to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country. To many observers, the promise of reduced immigration is almost impossible to achieve or measure.
With these developments, it is imperative that advocacy groups for immigrant rights should never let up in demanding that both enforcement and a path to citizenship remain part of one legislative package.
Immigrant rights group should counter the House Republicans’ public hearings, which are nothing more but an attempt to whip up an anti-immigrant frenzy by launching a vigorous public information campaign to make the public aware of the immigrants’ positive impact to the U.S. economy.
For the reality is, having a comprehensive, more humane immigration law is beneficial not only to the immigrants; it also helps the U.S. meet the needs of a growing economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PHNOM PENH – Perhaps some of us like me have lived in San Jose, California in the late ‘70s when it was thriving as a new haven for Filipinos. That started my connection to the city. Today, it is not surprising to know that the Filipino population has more than doubled in the last 25 years in line with the city’s population growth.
According to Census 2000, the population of the City of San Jose grew from 204,196 in 1980 to 894,943 as of April 2000. During 1990 to 2000 alone, the city experienced a 14.4 percent growth. As of July 2004, the estimated population is 905,000 making it the third largest city in California and the 10th in the nation.
My folks used to live in San Francisco, somewhere near Mission Dolores but they decided to move to San Jose in the Berryssa District when property sales was about to pick up. That was a wise decision as three years later they were able to buy another property, which they opted to rent out to a kababayan.
That was when their headaches and heartaches started. The word chess became a by-word – not in the real sense though – but as a pun to gossipers who were fond of engaging in what we call “tsismis;” hence, the word “chess-mis.”
And later, the word Uzi was added, which referred to the Israeli-made assault weapon. But in the parlance of our folks the word was a contraction of “usiseros” in referring to people who poke their nose into other people’s business. That was the time when my folks moved out there but stayed in the west coast; I went east -- to New York.
I left my heart in San Francisco and partly in San Jose but going east was a good choice. I had a fleeting connection to San Jose but with what’s happening in the Filipino community over there is a serious connection to how Filipinos are perceived.
After months of investigation, the city of San Jose has filed a lawsuit on July 7 against a Filipino-American non-profit group and its former executive accusing both of breach of contract for reportedly misusing more than $200,000 in city grants earmarked for senior citizens.
According to a news item from the mainstream newspaper Mercury News, the Filipino-American Senior Opportunities Development Council and Ben Menor, its former executive, were named in the lawsuit. They were accused of diverting the money for such things as in-home health care for his parents.
The newspaper also reports that City Attorney Rick Doyle has confirmed that the non-profit agency is also “under criminal investigation.” Until this year, the agency had been running the city’s Jacinto Tony Siquing Northside Community Center.
The former executive director also has its connection to a high-profile Filipino-American group in New Jersey. He was named as its technical adviser and I believe his appointment is current. Another connection also leads him to a top official of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA) based in New Jersey who lent money to Menor. The payback rate, however, was considered by San Jose auditors as usurious. That NaFFAA official was and is also a top official of the New Jersey group.
A former executive of that New Jersey group was likewise reportedly “dismissed” after auditors found that unauthorized overtime pay was being charged by the executive. I am not aware whether money was ever recovered by the non-profit organization.
Since last year, I had been trying to get a clear story about the findings of the auditors but everyone I contacted from those who were privy about the former executive remained mum over the issue. Perhaps their silence is another case of a cover-up? Or was there a threat of a counter lawsuit by the former executive if a lawsuit were filed against him or her?
But going back to the San Jose case, according to the lawsuit, the defendants “misappropriated grant money the agency received in 2002-03 for programs to improve the quality of life for seniors.”
When reached by a reporter of the Mercury News, Menor refused comment, saying “he had not yet seen the suit and wanted to seek legal counsel.” During the investigation last year, Menor denied that either he or his agency ever knowingly broke the law. He maintains the same belief to date.
With the city auditor’s findings, a connection with the NaFFAA, of which Menor is its National Director for Programs and Development and NaFFAA conference co-chair in 2002, may also lead to other discovery. If that happens, will top NaFFAA officials be involved as well in a possible lawsuit?
Mercury News reports the City Attorney Doyle as saying: “This is essentially a collection action due to monies owed to the city. We’re just seeking to collect those funds that were not properly spent or accounted for.”
The city audit found that the agency misused $219,414 in city grants; that the former executive authorized imprudent expenditures and processes; that the board of directors gave insufficient oversight; and that the group overstated its performance.
There are possibilities. But people, as one journalist notes in his e-mail, are “pretending nothing’s wrong, ignoring every question, socializing among themselves, etc.” He believes it is part of the whole cover-up.
We all have our connections to people, events, and places that make us recall almost every memory associated with them. But this San Jose connection with NaFFAA and others in the east coast could be one for the books about to happen.
Have you got a San Jose connection?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHAT are your chances of getting squashed by a reckless driver, speeding late at night through poorly lit intersections? Pretty high, says the Asian Development Bank in a study of road safety among Association of Southeast Asian Nations members. But the likelihood that you won’t even appear as a statistic in official traffic accident records is higher.
Also, the roads here are more lethal for kids, says the ADB’s “Country Report No 7: Philippines.” Children between the ages of 1 and 4 years accounted for the largest number of victims among “the most vulnerable group”: pedestrians. “About 25 percent to 40 percent of all pedestrians killed or seriously injured were under 15.”
On paper, “the Philippine accident rate is about 6 fatalities per 10,000 vehicles.” That makes us look good among Asean nations. The low victim head count has, in fact, lulled authorities into complacency, the report notes. But newspaper and broadcast reports show these up as smug assumptions.
“In reality, there are great discrepancies between statistics and the actual situation,” the report says. “In 2003, the police reported only about 900 fatalities.” But that same year, “about 9,000 fatalities could be attributed to road traffic accidents,” the United Nations Fund for Children asserted in its National Injury Survey.
The Unicef study covered 90,500 households, randomly selected from barangay to regional level. It concluded that over 783,000 pile-ups occur yearly. In over 144,000 instances, people were injured severely. Another 630,000 got off with bruises, black eyes, dented cars--and the scare of their lives.
A similar divergence appears when police statistics are stacked alongside hospital data, the ADB study notes. Health figures tracked a sharp climb in traffic accident fatalities over a five year period: from 1,212 to 3,865. The corpses notwithstanding, police statistics show there’s a downward trend.
“There are no specific steps for reporting accidents,” the report notes. In Metro Manila as well as in towns, police present at accidents bring the victims to the hospital and inform medico-legal departments.
But what if there’s no policeman around? Then, “reporting accidents from hospitals to police headquarters and to the PNP is seldom done.” Hospital records are not reconciled with police records. Computerization is just beginning. And staff is short.
As a result, “the level of accuracy of reporting traffic accidents varies from region to region.... This also leaves traffic investigation reports on minor injury accidents and property damage on the shelves of different police districts.”
Two traffic accident reporting and analysis systems, one at the Department of Public Works and the other at the Metro Manila Development Authority, still have to be coordinated. “An efficient road accident data system is simply not yet available in the Philippines.”
In a separate 2005 study, the ADB estimates the toll now tops $1.9 billion per year. At current exchange rates, that’s roughly P100.7 billion--equal 2.6 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.
The problem is unlikely to go away. The number of vehicles, careening on inadequate clogged roads here, increases at 4.4 percent yearly, roughly double the increase in population. Over a five year period, the number of motorcycles caromed from 604,746 to 1.61 million. “Motorcyclists are a growing problem.”
Most accidents occurred in Metro Manila. Northern Mindanao came next, followed by Bicol, then Western and Central Mindanao. Ilocos, Cagayan Valley and Southern Tagalog had the least.
More than a third (35 percent) of the smash-ups occur at intersections. Most happen at night. Contributing factors include poor street lighting, lack of warning devices, and disregard of traffic signals during late night or early morning hours.
The “loose nut behind the wheel” is responsible for one out of every four mishaps. The other causes are: fracturing speed limits, 17 percent; overtaking and mechanical defects, 12 percent. Drivers doze off, had one drink too many, suffer “reduced visibility due to smoke belchers and night blindness among the malnourished.”
“The first step is to keep unskilled drivers off the road,” the ADB says. “The current licensing system is so lax that people need not learn how to drive before getting a license.” Standards for licenses should be tied up to driver education.
“Some aspects of Filipino culture...often go against strict law implementation, self-discipline and courtesy,” the report points out. “These cultural factors tend to infect many agencies, as well as the behavior of drivers and pedestrians.”
Lack of spine will not ban dilapidated smoke-belching vehicles, clear sidewalks of vendors, tear down distracting billboards or clear ad-hoc cafeterias squatting on pedestrian paths.
“A trial-and-error method of solving traffic problems, which is often undertaken in the Philippines, must therefore be avoided.” That would come from better use of public institutions, like the University of the Philippines National Center for Transportation Studies, and private groups like the Automobile Association Philippines.
“A more powerful national safety committee is needed,” the report adds. Rosy statistics “cannot simply cover up for the failure of the transportation system.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ambassador Del Rosario burns his bridges
|
|
|
|
|
THE public admission of Philippine Ambassador Albert del Rosario to the US of the real reason behind his termination from his post is a clear sign that he does not expect to be appointed to any other post in the government of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. He has burned his bridges.
A farewell social that took place last week at the Philippine consulate in New York City confirmed rumors that have been circulating Washington, D.C. and Manila about the real circumstances surrounding Ambassador Del Rosario’s departure from government service. “I was fired.” This in effect was the revelation made by the Filiino envoy during the affair.
The blunt announcement belied the earlier statement made by Malacanang that Ambassador Del Rosario had “asked to be allowed to return to the private sector after five very fruitful and meaningful years as Phililppine Ambassador to the US.” From other sources in Manila, we learned there were other reasons.
Filipino American leaders who attended the event at the Big Apple to bid farewell to Del Rosario were shocked and saddened when the diplomat reportedly explained he decided to court his fate after he refused to do certain things Malacanang wanted him to undertake. The envoy gave no details to the attendees.
Among the rumors that reached us from Manila behind the sacking was that in a fit of tantrum, the President had asked for Del Rosario’s resignation. The alleged reason: He disagreed with a proposal to hire Venable, LLP, as an additional lobby group for the Philippine government in Washington, DC.
Venable, LLC was the same group that became an issue at a Philippine Senate committee hearing sometime ago.
During the hearing, National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales refused to enlighten the Senate about his negotiation with the lobbyists and risked contempt and arrest. He was allowed to enter the hospital complaining of hypertension. The outcome was the issuance by the President of the controversial Executive Order 464 or gag order.
GMA also reportedly was steamed as she blamed Del Rosario for his inability to prevent the Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. think tank from issuing its scathing criticism of her government. Likewise, blame was also allegedly heaped upon Del Rosario for the widely circulated editorial of the New York Times accusing Arroyo of reviving crony corruption, vote rigging and intimidation of critical journalists.
The Filipino ambassador’s sudden termination was especially hurtful because of the undiplomatic manner it was carried out. As with the growing number of firings in government, there was reportedly no courtesy of formal communication issued. The envoy learned the fact of his termination from the media, just like any ordinary Juan, Jose and Pedro.
From reports of our sources who were present at the farewell social, the dryness and moistness of the eyes of the guests were a good indication of where their sympathies lie as far as GMA’s administration is concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USCIS’ memo on affidavit of support
|
|
|
|
ON November 23, 2005, USCIS headquarters in Washington, D.C. issued a policy memorandum concerning affidavits of support (Form I-864), allowing a sponsor of an applicant applying for adjustment of status to submit his tax returns for only the most recent year, rather than for each of the three previous tax years. This will be a tremendous benefit to sponsors, as now they need only one tax return (for the current tax year), rather than having to submit tax returns for the previous three years.
By way of background, the law requires that in all family-based petition cases (as well as for some employment-based cases, where certain relatives own at least 5% of the petitioning company) the petitioner submit an affidavit of support and copies of his tax returns for the past three years. This new memo changes existing USCIS policy regarding the affidavit of support (Form I-864) in the following respects:
1. The petitioner/sponsor need only submit his/her most recent federal income tax return, in connection with any adjustment of status application (Form I-485) filed on or after the date of the memo (November 23, 2005). For example, if the sponsor signed the affidavit of support after April 15, 2005, only the sponsor’s 2004 federal income tax return would be required.
2. This rule (requiring only the most recent tax return) applies not only to the petitioning sponsor, but also to any substitute or joint sponsor signing a Form I-864 for an adjustment of status case.
3. For any adjustment of status application filed before the date of the memorandum, the sponsor should have filed the three most recent income tax returns. However, given the change of policy, adjudicators are no longer required to issue a request for evidence (RFE) for the missing earlier tax returns, and instead can adjudicate the case based on the most recent tax return.
4. In lieu of a tax return, USCIS officers shall also accept an IRS-generated transcript of the taxpayer’s income tax return as a true and correct “copy” of the sponsor’s tax return. (The IRS will, without charge, issue to a taxpayer a transcript of the taxpayer’s income tax return if the taxpayer files an IRS Form 4506T.) If an IRS transcript is submitted, it will not be necessary for USCIS to request any missing forms W-2 or 1099.
5. If the sponsor’s tax return demonstrates that the sponsor’s current income is at least 125% above the Poverty Guidelines, then the affidavit of support is sufficient, and the officer does not need to request any further evidence. The adjudicator should request additional evidence (i.e., employment letters, pay stubs, or other financial data from the sponsor) only if the sponsor’s tax returns reflects income below the Poverty Guidelines.
6. The affidavit of support is required at the time of the filing for adjustment of status. Previously, the USCIS allowed the submission of the affidavit of support, at the time of the adjustment of status interview. This memo states that the affidavit of support should be filed along with the adjustment of status application.
Please also note that the law requires that not only must the petitioner submit an affidavit of support in all cases (even if the petitioner is elderly, retired, has no money, etc.), but the petitioner must also be domiciled (or living) in the U.S. If an elderly Tatay has petitioned his adult children, but has since relocated to the Philippines, the parent would not be in a position to submit the affidavit of support. In such a case, a visa would not be issued.
Please also note that this policy memorandum deals with adjustment of status interviews in the U.S., and may not yet apply to applicants being processed for their visas at the U.S. Embassy. In those cases where people are being processed at the Embassy, the sponsor’s three most recent tax returns may still be required, until further notice.
Michael J. Gurfinkel has been an attorney for over 25 years, and is an active member of the State Bar of California and New York, as well as the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Immigration Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association.He has always excelled in school:Valedictorian in High School; Cum Laude at UCLA; and Law Degree Honors and academic scholar at Loyola Law School, which is one of the top law schools in California.
WEBSITE: www.gurfinkel.com
Four offices to serve you:
LOS ANGELES: 219 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (818) 543-5800
SAN FRANCISCO: 966 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: (415) 538-7800
NEW YORK: 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2101, New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 808-0300
PHILIPPINES: Heart Tower, Unit 701, 108 Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati, Philippines 1227 Telephone: 894-0258 or 894-0239
(This is for informational purposes only, and reflects the firm’s opinions and views on general issues. Each case is different and results may depend on the facts of a particular case. All immigration services are provided by an active member of the State Bar of California and/or by a person under the supervision of an active member of the State Bar. No prediction, warranty or guarantee can be made about the results of any case.Should you need or want legal advice, you should consult with and retain counsel of your own choice.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
