|
Founded in 1986
Founding Publisher/Editor:
Lito A. Gajilan
Columnists:
Atty. Michael J. Gurfinkel
Joseph G. Lariosa
Gani P. Tolentino
Ted L. Reyes
Atty. Reuben S. Seguritan
Photographers:
Butch Gata
Sheryl Garcia
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not reflect the opinion of the paper nor that of the publisher
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FINALLY, the12 th summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) finally got underway in Cebu City.
Despite a one-month postponement due to a misdirected typhoon. Despite warnings from three countries of possible terrorist attacks. Despite renewed security threat warnings again from three countries. And despite three bomb blasts just the day before the opening.
The fact that it pushed through, despite all these odds, is a testament to the resiliency and never-say-die spirit of the Filipino.
It is noteworthy to mention too that the Philippines had a very short time -- about a year -- to prepare for this ASEAN summit. Myanmar or Burma was supposed to host the 2006 summit, but regional leaders balked at the idea of coming to the military-ruled country. To save the summit, the Philippines gallantly offered to play host to the biennial meeting of Southeast Asian leaders. Notwithstanding the postponement last month, everything seems to be pointing to a successful summit.
ASEAN, which is composed of Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, meets every two years to sort out problems and issues in the region. This year, it seems the burning concern is regional security. Southeast Asia has seen the resurgence of islamic fundamentalism and the rise of groups capable of launching terrorist attacks.
At least two countries, Indonesia and the Philippines, seemed to be bearing the brunt of the repercussion of the rise of terrorist organizations.
Indonesia was victimized at least twice by bombings perpetrated by the Al-Qaeda-linked Jemayah Islamiyah. The Philippines has been identified as a training ground for the terrorist underground. At least two of JI’s leaders are reportedly hiding in the Philippines’ southern island of Mindanao. Several 9/11 suicide bombers set foot in the Philippines at one time or another. The plot to use commercial planes to attack skyscrapers was said to have been hatched in Manila. Even Bin Laden has a brother-in-law living in Mindanao.
With the way these terrorists have been operating in the past years, it is now obvious that these groups do not recognize borders. Recall how the Abu Sayyaf crossed the Malaysian border to abduct tourists from Sippadan and brought them to southern Philippines. As such, a concerted regional effort is needed if ASEAN ever hope to rid the region of terror threats.
Another urgent issue is economic cooperation. Southeast Asia has lost its 1990s luster, losing out to China, which is now the apple of the eyes of international investors. The only way to compete is to come together in an economic union, ala European Union. Or at least, agree to a regional complementation plan, to avoid countries focusing on the same industries and producing the same products.
It may be long in coming, it may have been delayed by a storm, security threats and bombings, but here it is now -- a chance of ASEAN leaders to tresh out regional problems.
And we have the resiliency of the Filipino people to thank for, for making it happen, come hell or high water.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extended stay for H-1B, L-1 workers w/ families
|
|
|
|
Editor’s Note: REUBEN S. SEGURITAN has been practicing law for over 30 years. For further information, you may call him at 212 695 5281 or log on to his website at www.seguritan.com
H-1B workers are generally allowed to stay in the US for a maximum period of six (6) years. L workers (intracompany workers) are allowed seven (7) years, if they are executives or managers, and five (5) years if they are persons of specialized knowledge.
It has not been clear, however, if the period of stay of their dependents under H-4 or L-2 visas were counted against these time limitations.
Under a recent memo issued by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services the maximum period of stay of an H-1B or L-1 family in cases where the H-4 or L-2 dependent switches with his/ her spouse to become the principal visa holder is practically extended.
The Memo provides that the time spent by dependents as H-4 and L-2 visa holders will not be counted toward their maximum authorized period of stay should these dependents change their status to H-1B or L-1.
The USCIS noted that there were no regulations in the past that specified the total maximum authorized stay of an H-4 alien, for instance, who later sought to convert to H-1B. The Memo now clarifies that the H-4 spouse who qualifies for H-1B is entitled to the full 6-year maximum stay.
This rule, the Memo explains, is not only consistent with the law, but also “promotes family unity by affording each qualified spouse the opportunity to spend six years in H-1B status while allowing the other spouse to remain as an H-4.”
Assuming all statutory requirements for a change of status are satisfied, the net effect of having the H-4 spouse convert to H-1B after the principal H-1B visa holder has reached the six-year maximum stay, is that the family can stay in the US for at least 12 years.
The same requirements and limitations still apply when the dependent spouse switches with the principal visa holder, such as being subject to the annual H-1B numerical limit, if not “independently exempt,” according to the Memo.
In the same manner, the time spent by an L-2 holder will not be counted against him/her if s/he converts to L-1. The family of the L holder can also practically stay longer than the maximum total stay of the first principal visa holder.
It must be noted that the policy consideration behind the rule is to keep the principal visa holder’s family together. Thus, the Memo states that the USCIS has the authority to “limit, deny or revoke on notice” the stay of an H-4 or L-2 visa holder in cases where the dependents are “parked” in the US, even as the principal visa holder spends extended periods of time abroad.
On the other hand, the Memo also notes that if the H-1B or L-1 holder is sent from time to time abroad temporarily, s/he may leave the family in the US for purposes of continuity of schooling or similar arrangements.
The principal visa holder and his/ her spouse must evaluate their situation to determine if the above regulation would apply to them. They must seek legal advice to determine if the H-4 or L-2 dependent spouse can qualify for either H-1B or L-1, in order to avail of the maximum period of stay in the US as part of a longer-term strategy of possibly seeking adjustment of status to permanent residency in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHICAGO, Illinois (JGL) -- The Knights of Rizal in Chicagoland led an elaborate commemoration of the martyrdom of Jose Rizal’s 110th death anniversary last Dec. 30 at the Rizal Center in Chicago, Illinois as they joined the rest of Filipinos everywhere to mark the occasion.
But for Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, this event has become some kind of an albatross around her neck.
It was during this Philippine holiday in 2002 that Mrs. Arroyo used the occasion to announce that she was not running for president to appease a restive nation.
It turned out that Mrs. Arroyo was merely teasing the Filipino people as she later took back her words as soon as she declared her candidacy for presidency.
I feel that Rizal must have turned on his grave when she lied to the Filipino people, which could have doomed the Arroyo’s presidency.
It may be true that Filipinos might be fickle-minded. By playing into this Filipino psyche, Arroyo got a karmic curse that won’t just go away. She would be mired in one controversy after another.
Sins of Arroyo
Mrs. Arroyo was impeached for stealing her 2004 presidential elections that were exposed by the “Hello, Garci” tapes and bolstered by the “Joc-Joc” Bolante caper. She was roundly criticized after revelations of massive graft and corruption involving her husband, First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo, their son, Congressman Mikey Arroyo and her brother-in-law Negros Occidental Rep. Ignacio “Iggy” Arroyo who were on the take in jueteng (numbers game) as if the protection money from jueteng collection that caused the detention of President Estrada is something to be emulated; her refusal to let her bureaucrats face accountability at the committee investigations launched by the Philippine Senate; and her declaration of the state of emergency, a notch short of martial law, to stave off protest at the anniversary of the People Power Revolution.
And now this – the surreptitious transfer of convicted rapist US Marine Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith from the Makati City Jail to the US Embassy.
Patience No Longer A Virtue
As if there is no more tomorrow, instead of waiting for a few days to find out the ruling of the Philippine Court of Appeals, Arroyo took matters into her own hands by spiriting Smith out of the Makati City Jail.
It was actually a desperate attempt of Mrs. Arroyo to save face after getting a cold shoulder from President Bush when she ordered the pullout of a token Philippine contingent from Iraq to save the life of a Filipino being held hostage by Iraqi captors. Of course, Mrs. Arroyo should be congratulated for this presidential decision, which is one of the hallmarks of Mrs. Arroyo’s foreign policy.
However, when her Ambassador to the United States (Albert Del Rosario) failed to stop the publication of an editorial in the New York Times, criticizing Arroyo, as if the editors would be listening to Mr. Del Rosario’s plea, Mr. Del Rosario became a marked man.
Communist-based Decision
The final straw that broke the camel’s back came after Mr. Del Rosario failed to arrange a meeting between Mrs. Arroyo and Mr. Bush when Mrs. Arroyo was invited by the National Press Club of Washington, D.C. for a speaking engagement.
Saying that she wanted to save the diplomatic ties between the Philippines and the United States at the risk of contempt of court, Mrs. Arroyo agreed to transfer the custody of Mr. Smith from the Makati City jail to the US Embassy.
Arroyo’s decision was not only humiliating for the Philippines, it valued national gains over individual honor – a basic departure from democratic processes, which put premium on human rights over state rights. Arroyo’s decision is based on Communist ideology, where state rights are superior over individual or human rights.
There were no political gains either to speak off in Mrs. Arroyo’s decision. In fact, it was a step back in time when the Philippines was still a colony, if not a Commonwealth of the United States.
There would have been gains if the Philippines broke off diplomatic relations with the United States. It would have sent a message that the Philippines has finally asserted its independence from Mother America. And that the Philippines is ready to enter into an alliance with another superpower or become a real member of Non-Aligned Nations.
I won’t be surprised if Arroyo and her factotums will be held in contempt by the Philippine Supreme Court for violating the separation of powers and, of course, the Philippine Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“LIFE is the threshold at which all other hopes begin.” And Health Secretary Francisco Duque is talking of how this threshold is surging, seen in our lengthening life expectancies.
In the mid-1940s, life was “nasty, brutish and short” with life expectancy at 47 years. Today, it is 70 years, “due to a shift to a healthier lifestyle,” the secretary says. DDT spraying after World War II, in fact, stamped out malaria, helping to lengthen lives.
“We’ve surpassed Thailand’s life expectancy of below 70,” the secretary went on. Thus, more Filipinos will, in William Butler Yeats’ haunting image, “comb grey hair.” The Human Development Report 2006, in fact, reveals that Filipino life expectancy today is 70.2 years. It is 69.7 years for Thais.
A pity Secretary Duque’s comparison skips the international context. He also didn’t bring out the stark disparities between provinces.
Singaporeans can look forward to 79 years of life. And the Japanese golfer, who tees off here, will probably outlive his Filipino caddy by 12 years. That gap shows what is possible. “That a man’s reach should exceed his grasp/ Or what’s a heaven for?” Browning once asked.
Life expectancy for Pampangueños and Cebuanos is now 72 years, the Philippine Human Development Report reveals. But people in Tawi-Tawi, Sulu and Maguindanao are handcuffed to life spans that, at 52, are almost a generation shorter. In between these extremes are people in Kalinga, Apayao, Quirino and Antique--62 years is within their reach.
These “fault lines” mirror the skewed distribution of wealth and power and strangehold over resources by a miniscule elite. The richest 20 percent in Metro Manila, for example, consume 45 centavos out of every peso. Mostly huddled in the slums, the poorest 20 percent try to make do with 8 centavos.
Poverty is a “state of powerlessness, and not merely the lack of assets and services to meet the most basic of needs.” And chronic hunger spawns lethargy, apathy and ill-health so widespread that they’re taken for granted. Also, horizons of the rich rarely extend beyond their “gated enclaves.” The rich man’s line of sight, the parable tells us, blotted out Lazarus scrounging for crumbs at his gate.
Affluence guarantees this elite food, medical care, shelter, education, clean water and sanitation, aside from summer homes, second cars and trips abroad. These add-on years of life, prompting many to ask: Does wealth vest a franchise to life on the few?
We must learn to see these dry-as-dust figures for what they really are: sentences to early deaths for helpless men, women and children. Many never get to thresholds “at which all other hopes begin.”
“Differences in homes, clothing, schools or even diets are galling enough,” the late National Scientist Dioscoro Umali told the Asia Society in New York. “But denial of life and premature graves constitute an obscene injustice ... and cuts into the depths of our common humanity. They vest the cries for justice with the pent-up force of suppressed anger. We will reap the whirlwind if we persist in sowing the wind this way.”
This denial of life probably is seen most vividly in what Duque frets about: “the increasing number of maternal deaths, specially in rural areas.” Out of every 100,000 deliveries here today, he reports, 270 Filipino mothers die. This is six times the maternal death rate of Thailand, which is 44.
Why this stark difference? Far too many Filipina mothers resort to untrained “hilots,” the secretary said. The DOH is therefore introducing maternity packages. These could steer pregnant women to local health centers, which often are short of medicine, or government hospitals, which invariably are overcrowded.
You deliver a baby in Thailand today, 9 out of 10 you’ll have skilled health personnel in attendance, according to UN human development indicators. That slumps to only 6 out of 10 in the Philippines. Are we seeing here part of the bill for mass migration of our doctors, nurses or midwives?
Thailand’s smaller population has a higher per capita income. Yet, Bangkok spent $260 per capita of its GDP for health. We penny-pinched at $170. No wonder, 99 percent of Thai kids are fully immunized against TB. Compare that to 58 percent for Filipinos. And will Thais, in the future, be taller than Filipinos? Out of every 100 Filipino school kids, 32 are stunted, compared to 13 percent for Thais.
Clean water and sanitation are the most cost-efficient means for whittling death rates, says the UNDP study, “Beyond Scarcity.” Some 99 percent of Thais have access to improved sanitation, but only 72 percent of Filipinos do. In Cebu City, 38 out of every 100 households tap into water supplies of neighbors because of its obsolete municipal system and collapsing aquifers.
The litmus test for those seeking elections in May is what they can do about premature deaths now that will make a difference later. The operative word is “now.” “Tomorrow is a postdated check. But today is cash.”
As those deaths show, we are a country of great needs. We need models of limited wants. Surely, fewer deaths for Filipino mothers and children is within our reach. We have the resources, the technology, the human skills to ensure that the “threshold where all other hopes begin” need not close. But who has the backbone?
(E-mail : juan_mercado74@yahoo.com)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why GMA might stay forever
|
|
|
|
FIRST OF TWO PARTS
BASICALLY, there are two possibilities on how the reign of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as president of the Philippines might end.
First, through a successful coup d’etat led by the military and the police. Second, through death by natural cause or by assasination. The first is the one that is the most subject of speculation.
When one speculates on the first, the coup could be either by opponents of the government or a coup from within, usually with a declaration of martial law. In either case, most analysts say considering the historical background of the Philippines, it cannot be carried out without the blessing of the United States, the dominant superpower in the Pacific region.
During the destabilizing crisis in February last year, it is said the government of GMA had sounded the White House on the possibility of declaring martial law. It is rumored Washington turned Malacanang down. From time to time, disgruntled elements of the military reportedly planned to stage a coup and sounded friends in the White House but were ignored every time.
It is extremely difficult to obtain a hearing at the White House on any proposal to change a regime. Before the US military bases at Subic and Clark were pulled out, it was easier. But after the bases were dismantled and the cold war ended and later China lowered its superpower profile from military to economic, the Philippines’ strategic importance in the region diminished militarily. The risk of superpower military confrontation has however been replaced by the far greater risk from terrorism. The latter risk involves the potential of great loss of lives and thus has demanded wider involvement among nations.
The problem of worldwide terrorism requires a new dimension of strategy. Such strategies, for the Philippines, transcends localized political conflicts. Hence, the tendencies for the US would be to layoff family quarrel type of quarrels, and this development would tend to favor reigning governments.
We believe Washington’s principles in dealing with problems of say a coup in Manila have not changed very much from the time the White House confronted the l989 rebellion against former President Cory Aquino to a similar crisis if this were to happen today.
We were reading Bob Woodward (of Washington Post and of the Watergate fame) who wrote “The Commanders”. The book dissects the process White House’s civilian and military decision makers employed in resolving Iraq’s invasion by Saddam Hussein of Kuwait and pursuing what became known as the Desert Storm.
Woodward devoted seven pages on the l989 crisis resulting from the attempted coup against former President Aquino. The significance of that coup was that fighting briefly occurred in the central district of Makati, the Wall Street of Pilippine business. It was estimated the event set back the Philippine economy some five years.
Reviewing the crisis meetings held in the White House to respond to the trouble in Manila, certain principles and policies emerged which the US observed in resolving the crisis. Based on what Woodward wrote, we believe the same approach would occur should a similar event were to take place at the present time.
Assuming such a crisis under Gloria Macapagal Arroyo would take place, the debates that ensued during the l989 coup would in general take the same pattern, apply the same principles and use the same reasoning. If this happens, as long as no American lives are enDangered, no massive and serious violations of human rights are committed, the US will not intervene. Since GMA has a firm hold of the military and the police, our conclusion is that GMA can rule “forever”.
Corruption can continue to fester. To the US, this is an internal affair. GMA can just continue to do her damnedest to make the economy survive. What hope is there for the suffering masses? Yes, if GMA can continue with her ways, the people can assume that God must have forgotten the Philippines. And hope that sometime later God will remember the Filipinos and miraculously throw them a bone of mercy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael J. Gurfinkel has been an attorney for over 26 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
