|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE official start of the filing of candidacy for the May elections on January 14 all but heralded the fact that the election season is upon our nation anew.
Although politicians, elected officials and Cabinet officials seem to be always doing political campaigning, expect the political atmosphere to intensify in the coming weeks.
Perhaps no other political event in the country is as anticipated as the election and the accompanying campaign period. The Filipino public are suckers for elections, and they have quite valid reasons to be so. As one social scientist said, the Filipino voting public perceive election period as: 1) circus; 2) revenge; and 3) social welfare.
The campaign period in the Philippines is like a circus. The coming of politicians to a barrio is like the perennial karnabal that descends on the townsfolk, entertaining the public but in the end, fleecing them of their hard-earned pesos. Still, it is only during campaign periods that the people get to be entertained by politicians wooing their votes.
Candidates bring actors, actresses, singers and all sorts of entertainers to the stage to attract them and keep them interested in their political sorties. More importantly, the public wait for these ‘public servants-wannabes’ to make a fool of themselves. Politicians sing, dance, rap, even perform fire-eating acts in public, in the hope of making the voters remember them come judgment day.
The Filipino voting public are also thrilled by the fact that the campaign period is a great equalizer. Ignored for much of the time that a politician sits in his office, the campaign period forces the politician to recognize the importance of reaching out to the people. During campaign period, the voters are king. Politicians fall all over just to shake the ordinary masa’s hands, carry and kiss their babies, and share humble meals with them. For the millions of Filipinos, the campaign period is when they exact their revenge for being forgotten in between elections.
Elections in the Philippines have also evolved into a social welfare program. During campaign period, politicians dole out bags of goodies and shell out cash to their supposed supporters. On election day, money in the millions change hands -- from politicians awash with cash to the great unwashed.
But the social welfare nature of elections does not end there. For the voting public, the patronage system is just beginning. For many voters, supporting a candidate also means being able to curry favors. After the election, the public would then approach Mr.. Elected Public Official and ask for jobs. It’s now time for the politician to pay his “utang na loob”.
Who says we Filipino do not take our elections seriously? We actually do, but for the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preserving child’s immigrant visa eligibility after turning 21
|
|
|
|
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
BEFORE the enactment of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) on August 6, 2002, minor children stood to lose their eligibility for immigration benefits when processing delays by the Immigration Service or the Department of State prevented them from obtaining permanent residency before reaching 21.
With the CSPA, the age of the child is “frozen” on the date of immigrant visa availability minus the number of days the petition was “pending.” The child must apply for permanent residence within a year of visa availability, otherwise, s/he would not be covered by the law.
There are three factors to consider in determining a child’s age-out protection under the CSPA: first, the period during which the petition is pending; second, the date when the immigrant visa becomes available; and third, whether the child applied for an immigrant visa within one year of visa availability.
Petition Pending
The period during which the petition is pending is reckoned from the time the I-130 or I-140 petition is filed up to the date of approval.
If a child is 21 years and 2 months on the date the visa number becomes available and the I-130 petition under the Family 2A category or I-140 petition had been pending for 6 months, the child’s age is frozen at 20 years and 8 months (21 years and 2 months less 6 months). The child therefore does not age out under the CSPA.
Visa Availability
There must be an approved petition and a current priority date to determine visa availability.
The filing of the petition alone is not enough to freeze the child’s age; there must be an approval. The current priority date, on the other hand, is determined by referring to the monthly Visa Bulletin issued by the State Department. The Visa Bulletin indicates the priority date when a visa for a particular preference or category becomes available.
According to an Immigration Service Memo, the date on which an immigrant visa becomes available “is the first day of the month of the Department of State Visa Bulletin, which indicates availability of a visa for that preference category.”
The priority date is the order in which a visa becomes available. Generally, the priority date for family-based petitions is the date the I-130 is filed, while that for employment-based petition is either the date a labor certification or the I-140 preference petition (not requiring a labor certification) is filed.
Visa Application
The CSPA kicks in only if the child has filed an application for the visa within one year from the date of visa availability. The applicant need not actually obtain permanent residence as the law simply requires the filing of the application, within one year.
After the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly, the “INS”) approves the petition, the National Visa Center (NVC) sends the applicant a packet that includes the Immigrant Visa Application form (DS 230 Part I) after payment of the immigrant visa fee. This form is filled up, sent back to the NVC, and entered into the system. The filing of the DS-230 Part I with the NVC within one year of visa availability constitutes the “filing” requirement.
For so-called “following-to-join” dependents, the filing requirement is fulfilled when the parent files the I-824 or, as some practitioners assert when “the parent takes some other concrete step to obtain permanent residence status for his/her child” within one year of visa availability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carpe Diem (Seize the Day)!
|
|
|
|
CHICAGO – Only two heartbeats away from the Presidency, new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the third most powerful official in the United States, must really be a power to reckon with.
Ms. Pelosi’s predecessor outgoing Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois never had a soft spot for the plight of our World War II Filipino veterans as he never signed up as a co-sponsor of this bill. He might not have even heard of this Filipino Equity bill.
As everybody knows, a Speaker is able to use his/her power to schedule legislation for floor debates and during conference for the bill, s/he can have a powerful influence to decide on the final provisions of a bill.
For this reason, advocates for the Filipino Equity Bill should find a source for rejoicing. I found out from my research from the US congressional records that when she was not yet a Speaker, Congressman Pelosi was among the 42 co-sponsors of the 2005 Filipino Equity Bill introduced by Rep. Darrell E. Issa (CA-49) pending in the 109th Congress.
Bill may rise like a phoenix
When Mr. Issa re-introduces the 2006 Filipino Equity Bill at the current 110th Congress, this bill, which has been gathering dusts in the subcommittee level, may yet rise like a Phoenix! At the ‘Veterans’ Summit’ held last Dec. 7, 2006 in the Philippine Embassy in Washington, D.C., Rep. Bob Filner (CA-51), pledged that “As Chairman of the House of Representatives Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I will be working hard for early passage of the World War II Filipino Veterans Equity Act. We’re closer than we’ve ever been to succeed. But we still have lots of work to do. We will do everything we can to have this bill in 2007 because the veterans deserve this victory.”
Taking a cue from Mr. Filner’s pronouncements, Chicago’s suburban Skokie, Illinois Commissioner Jerry B. Clarito, himself a son of a Filipino veteran and the representative of NaFFAA-Illinois and NaFFAA Region 3 at the Philippine Embassy Veterans’ Summit, has started the ball-rolling by organizing the Chicago Full Equity Grassroots lobbying task force which meets this Saturday, Jan. 13, at 2 p.m. at 2454 West Peterson Avenue in Chicago’s northside.
Atty. Vanessa Vergara of the Filipino Civil Rights Advocates (FilCRA) and the Filipino American Bar Association (FABA) will unveil the local lobbying strategy. The strategy calls for a “broad base of support while reaching out to the members of Congress at the district level.”
This means that the first order of business of veterans’ advocates nationwide is to connect with the previous co-sponsors of this bill since they already know what this money measure is all about.
SF Filipinos should lobby Speaker
This also means that Filipino constituents of Speaker Pelosi in California’s eighth congressional district in San Francisco must lobby her renewal of support for her co-sponsorship of the Filipino Equity Bill.
And, of course, Filipino Americans should train their guns on 38 other bill’s co-sponsors who were re-elected to their congressional posts. Five other cosponsors of the 2005 Filipino Equity Bill either did not run or failed to be –reelected last November.
Notable among these co-sponsors aside from Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Filner are Rep. Mike M. Honda (CA-15), Senior Whip, a frequent guest speaker of the events of the National Federation of Filipino American Association who was appointed to key House Appropriation Committee; Rep. Rahm Emanuel (IL-5), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; Rep. Tom Lantos (CA-12), ranking Democratic member of the House International Relations Committee; Rep. Janice Schakowsky (IL-19), vice chair of Women’s Caucus; and Rep. Robert C. Scott (VA-3), the only Filipino American member of Congress, member of the Judiciary committee.
Out of the 38 co-sponsors of the 2005 Filipino Equity Bill, nine are members of the International Relations Committee; seven are members of the Armed Services Committee; five are with the Veterans Affairs Committee; four each are with Appropriations and Judiciary Committees; three are with the Ways and Means Committee; and two each are with the Budget and Intelligence Committees.
If Chairman Filner would like to put the Filipino Equity Bill to a vote at his Committee, he will need the support of at least 13 members of the 25-member Veterans Affairs Committee to vote for this bill so it can be sent to the full House. A majority of the House members out of the minimum of 218 members present should vote for it before it is sent to the Senate. If it does not muster the majority in the House, the bill dies.
So, what are you wafting for? Write or call your area congressman and senator for support of this bill. Now!
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DELEGATES to the 12th ASEAN meeting need not ask why, in the counterterrorism chain they’re cobbling, our armed forces may be a weaker link. Filipina journalists have given an answer that impacts on southern Philippine “sanctuaries of terror” and regional security.
In an investigative report published by the Inquirer, Yvonne Chua and Luz Rimban document how a culture of sleaze, over the years, whittled down the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) into the wimp of ASEAN armed forces today.
After tenacious research and interviews, they stitched fragmented information about the AFP into a cohesive whole. The result reveals, in Juvenal’s phrase: fuit turpissimus (the depths of turpitude). How else do you call dissipating P11 billion in office supplies, entertainment, etc. through rigged bids and favored suppliers? Foot soldiers, meanwhile, lack food, guns, boots, radio -- even as their retirement funds have been looted. “Money can hide a thousand deformities.”
The President is commander in chief. And Congress postures as guardian of the purse. But military reforms have stalled. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?” Who watches the watchmen? In a democracy, the citizen and the press do.
In three concise articles, Chua and Rimban exercised more oversight over the AFP than Congress ever managed. They pinpointed blots and glitches -- from bogged-down Scorpion tanks to underhanded cuts in allowances of Filipinos serving as UN peacekeepers.
Their accuracy, balance and sense of the relevant jacks up the standards for investigative reporting -- a “critical component of the democratic discourse,” as the 2003 Ramon Magsaysay Award for Journalism for Sheila Coronel puts it. They focused on glossed-over issues and asked tough questions.
Theirs was grueling work. At the Marcelo Fernan Cebu Press Center, Chua and I swapped notes on “following the smell of money” in Commission on Audit (COA) reports. Chua and Rimban honed this skill at the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Their articles skewered independent power plants and Joseph Estrada’s mansions for concubines. “You’re likely to find the story buried in the annexes, not in the main report,” Chua mused. In Cebu, bloated foreign debts for Mayor Tomas Osmeña’s reclamation project and the airport’s Bell 412 EP helicopter were first stashed in COA annexes.
By example, the Chua-Rimban series spurns “pack-reporting.” In the justice department, a “ponente” scribbles a bland press release for others on the beat to embroider, says the Philippine Journalism Review. That malpractice is cloned in other beats. Thus, few challenge the official line. “Pack reporting is insidiously convenient, with its comforting blanket of conformity … Truth-telling is the loneliest of businesses.”
The deeper significance of the Inquirer series is seen in the scholars’ insistence that the ASEAN address more forcefully the seepage of terrorists across porous borders, whether in southern Thailand or Mindanao, “as a radical minority and a moderate majority battle for the soul of Islam.” A weak state, the Philippines is at peace with its neighbors, note Kit Collier of Australian National University and Malcolm Cook of Lowry Institute for International Policy. “But since 1994, its lawless southern islands replaced Afghanistan as the main training ground and refuge for Southeast Asian jihadists. Most are Indonesians belonging to Jemaah Islamiyah, Mujahidin Kompak, Darul Islam and other factions. Mindanao could well become “the Philippines’ sanctuaries of terror.”
Singapore’s International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research estimates that JI has 100 foreign militants hiding in Mindanao alone. “The graduates of the Mindanao camps have taken part in every JI-linked bombings since 2000, including the attack on Bali in 2002.”
Another Filipina journalist offered one of the more perceptive analyses of this threat before 23 countries attending the Pacific Area Special Operations Conference. It’s a myth to think that today’s borders and nations can contain these new conflicts as they did in the past, former CNN bureau chief Maria Ressa cautioned.
“When you’re talking about conflicts involving Muslim issues, there are no local conflicts,” says Ressa, who now heads the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. news and current affairs office. Post 9/11 assumptions no longer hold in a struggle where language and culture have become weapons. “No one dominant culture or power can dictate the terms” in what will be a drawn-out ideological and armed campaign. Denial, as well as petty intra-country squabbles like failing to share information, can impose high costs.
“The front line in this war is within the Muslim world,” she adds. It is “a battle for the soul of Islam: between a radical minority and a moderate majority … Language, culture and religion will play crucial roles in convincing Muslims … in defining Islam’s future.
ASEAN member countries must adopt multi-pronged responses -- from law to education. Malaysia, for example, monitors its ulamahs. A coup-tainted AFP needs to be professionalized and reoriented to defense, border security and special operations, Collier and Cook stress. A better-equipped AFP can “close down any remaining terrorist sanctuaries -- and keep them closed.” And that’s what Chua and Rimban’s and Ressa’s reports are about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why GMA might stay forever
|
|
|
|
LAST OF 2 PARTS
ON NOVEMBER 30, 1989 the White House of George H.W. Bush received a report that a coup d’etat had been launched against the 3-1/2 year rule of President Cory Aquino. A 1,000-man rebel force had overrun two air bases and was bombing and strafing the presidential palace.
There had been coup rumors before, but this time the White House was alarmed because the rebels had acquired air power.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell went up to the room of Defense Secretary Dick Chenney and told him the reports were unclear and unverified. It was decided to call an inter-agencies deputies committee to a meeting with Powell’s Vice Chairman, Robert Herres, presiding. Powell then went home for dinner.
In his book “The Commanders”, Bob Woodward of the “Washington Post” and of Watergate fame recounted the blow-by-blow response of the White House and the Pentagon to Pres. Aquino’s crisis in l989. That year’s coup was memorable because some of the fighting took place in Makati, the Philippine’s Wall Street, and reportedly set back the country’s economy five years.
The interagencies committee represented, among others, the State Department, the Defense Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the National Security Adviser and the Department of Justice. It continued to monitor the Philippine situation into the night.
At one point, a request was received from the Philippine Defense Secretary, Fidel V. Ramos who was elected president after Aquino. Ramos asked the US to intervene militarily. Herres opined that the US military bases at Clark and Subic should not intervene in an internal civil strife. Robert Gates, the deputy National Security Adviser (and currently the newly appointed State Secretary of the younger Bush) concurred.
President Bush was outside the U.S. on a diplomatic mission in Europe. In his place, Vice President Dan Quayle presided over the crisis committee.
The State Department deputy Lawrence Eagleberger opined “Look, we have no choice.”
He said the US had sponsored the Philippine democratic government and was obligated to respond to the crisis. He said the Defense Department had to figure out a way how to intervene, but intervene they must to save the Aquino government.
As the night wore on, the Manila crisis grew more serious. The Philippine government asked that planes from Clark should bomb the two captured air bases and the munitions depot the rebels were using. Quayle said a recommendation must be made to the President on what specific response should be made Powell who had rejoined the meeting said “Let’s try something short of bombing.” He was concerned that the requests were imprecise. US Ambassador Nicholas Platt in Manila confirmed they were coming from Aquino and Ramos.
He sensed panic. He had questions such as what is our purpose? What exactly is the mission? What is the immediate objective in bombing the airfields? If the purpose is to prevent the old T-28 trainer planes from taking off, he said getting the modern US F-4 jet fighters to buzz overhead might scare the Filipino pilots. It could do the job without the US getting into more trouble.
Besides, Powell said there would be both loyalists and rebels in the airbases and both could suffer casualties besides the civilians. If US planes killed Filipinos, no one in that country would forgive the Americans. Powell said anti-Americanism still simmered under the surface in the former US colony and he could envision Aquino attending a memorial service for the loyalist and rebel casualties while anti-US rallies take place all around. “We can’t stick our nose too far into a family fight”, Powell said.
Powell recommended the following rules of engagement: “First rule: The US pilots were to fly over the captured air bases and to demonstrate extreme hostile intent -- in other words, to buzz the shit out of the rebel T-28’s on the ground. Second, if the T-28s or other rebel aircraft began to taxi on the runway, the US pilots were to shoot in front of them -- the classic warning shot across the bow. Third, if at any point the rebels broke ground from the runway in a takeoff, the US pilots were then to shoot the planes down.”
“We have interests in the Philippines that go beyond Mrs. Aquino,” Powell said. Suppose the coup succeeds? We don’t want to get off on the wrong foot with the leaders even before they take power.”
“With Gates listening in at the White House end, Quayle contacted Bush in Air Force One and told him: we’re giving you the unanimous recommendation that we intervene, but in this way, and he proceeded to lay out Powell’s three rules of engagement. Bush approved. By 1:30 a.m. Washington DC time, the Air Force had launched the F-4s.”
The White House managed the media releases to save Aquino’s face. They made it appear that the scare tactics was what she asked and what was granted by the US, and not the bombing of her own people. Powell told Quayle he was not dead certain about the real position of Defense Secretary Ramos. He knew from past experience that Filipino military leaders did not take sides right away but waited to see which side was winning. Quayle asked him to call Ramos directly.
“Powell was not worried that Ramos would go over to the rebel side. He thought Ramos would sit out the coup -- an action that might intentionally or not, be fatal to Mrs. Aquino.
Powell wanted to make sure he did not get into a policy discussion with the defense minister.” He called Ramos and confirmed what he expected, that Ramos would go with Aquino.
Should a similar crisis arise in the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, we believe the same thoughts, reasoning, principles and policies would expectedly prevail in a White House response. We believe GMA could survive a longer time provided she is careful to see that she does not endanger lives and business interests of American citizens, does not commit excesses in violating human rights and reasonably cooperate in the US efforts in combatting terrorism. Yes, she will survive as long as she keeps her hold on her military and police generals. Corruption? To the Americans, this would fall under the safe classification of internal affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
