|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR about a decade and a half now, the Philippines has witnessed the renascence of Muslim fundamentalist faith in Mindanao and Sulu.
The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF)’s hostaging of a general, an undersecretary and the staff of of the government’s peace panel with this Muslim rbel group is perhaps the latest proof that there is a renewed unrest within the militant Muslim community. The continued threat posed by the Abu Sayyaf and the Moro islamic Liberation Front, despite continuing military operations propped up by US’s military and intelligence assistance, only served to confirm the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism in the forsaken southern parts of the country.
Obviously, the MNLF hostage-takers were out to make a political statement; either they were out to embarrass the government or to announce to the world that they are still a new force to reckon with in Muslim Mindanao.
It also brought into the open another truth -- that the government had failed to address the Muslim secessionist issue in Mindanao and Sulu.
The hostage-taking only made obvious the uselessness of the peace negotiations with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) of Nur Misuari. When the government entered into a peace pact with the MNLF, it was not even a shadow of its old self. Some datus who used to be with the MNLF bolted out. Those who believe in a purer religious war also pulled out and set up the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
Moreover, the younger, aggressive ones view Misuari’s peace talks with the government as a betrayal of the Muslim cause. Among them are Muslim militants now with the Abu Sayyaf.
The festering problem of Muslim militants is an indubitable proof that years of going to war against the Muslim rebel groups, and now terrorist and criminal groups, have yielded no positive results in terms of ending the long-standing war.
A military solution alone won’t solve the spiraling violence in Mindanao. What is needed is a fast-track comprehensive economic program to transform Mindanao from being the country’s backyard into the new center of economic growth. Mere lip service won’t end the age-old problem. The people of Mindanao have had enough of that.
What is imperative is a strong commitment from the government to bring about economic development to the island.
Only a dynamic economy will convince extremists that there is a more lucrative means to earn a living than to bear arms.
Only a benevolent and progressive society can convince our Muslim brothers that they are not second-class citizens and that they are not being discriminated against because of their faith.
In the meantime, we will have to bear the impact of the resurgence of Muslim fundamentalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
File now before sharp rise in USCIS fees
|
|
|
|
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
THE big news in the immigration front is the proposal of the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to increase filing fees in some cases more than 200 percent. To get a better picture of the dollars-and-cents impact of this proposal, here is a brief rundown of the current versus proposed fees of the most common petitions and applications filed with the USCIS.
For an alien relative petition (I-130), the current fee of $190, will rise to $355; for an alien worker petition (I-140), the current fee of $195, will be increased to $475; for adjustment of status applications (“I-485,” a.k.a., “green card applications”) the current $325 fee will rise to $905; for employment authorization applications (I-765), the current $180 fee will be jacked up to $340; and for citizenship applications (N-400), the $330 fee will become $595.
The proposal is still up in the air, although it seems the USCIS is pushing hard on this massive fee increase. The prudent move for those seeking immigration benefits, including those who are eligible for naturalization is to file their applications and petitions immediately. While it may be possible that public clamor would eventually convince the USCIS to minimize the proposed increase, an increase is nevertheless very likely. Thus, now is the best time to file.
There had already been a four-fold rise in filing fees over the past 12 years, observes the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) in a recent press release. USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez previously stated that the USCIS is aiming to see a “20 percent improvement in processing times by the end of 2009.”
According to AILA, the fee increases will be used to fund not only the services for petitioners and application, but for other USCIS expenses, including law enforcement, particularly, background checks.
AILA, however, said it is not convinced that the money from new increases will be put toward improving the antiquated systems that have caused delays in the path to citizenship.
Key leaders in Congress and the press have echoed the objection to the proposed USCIS fee increase.
Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA), as well as Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), chairmen of the Judiciary Committee and Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate and House, respectively, have already written to the USCIS to ask that the fee increase be held in abeyance pending their examination of the cost estimates and other bases for the fee increase. They further requested the USCIS to notify them in advance of plans to finalize the fee increase and its timeline for implementation.
The New York Times editorial on February 4, 2007 depicted the proposed fee increase with a startling picture of Lady Liberty holding up the lamp beside the golden door with one hand, while plucking out bills from immigrants’ pockets with the other. It chastised Congress for failing to appropriate federal funds for USCIS operations.
The Times added that because all Americans benefit from the healthy, invigorating flow of naturalized citizens, all Americans, not just the “newest and least powerful ones” should help pay for USCIS operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When to call off a divorce
|
|
|
|
“What God has joined together let no man put asunder.”-- Matthew 19:6
CHICAGO, Illinois -- A recent report that one out of two marriages in the United States has ended up in divorce may not really be an eye opener anymore.
This phenomenon has been expected if we look back at the previous trend. In 1920, there was one in seven marriages ending in divorce; in 1960, it worsened to one in four in 1960; and in 1974, it was one in three.
So, if this trend continues, perhaps in another 50 years or so, all marriages will be going on the rocks, thereby, totally demolishing the building block of a family as a revered institution.
Imagine, if one of these seven sacraments is eliminated, it is going to lead to erosion of other cultures we hold dear to our hearts.
Wedding planners and wedding photographers/videographers are going out of business.
And it will be eliminating one of the more glamorous duties of a priest, mayor, judge, pilot or ship captain in administering the union.
There will be less, if not none at all, hotel and airline bookings by honeymooners and so on.
For those tired of giving away gifts, the absence of wedding ceremonies will certainly be a welcome break for them.
And most of all, the courts will be relieved of divorce cases that clog our divorce courts.
Learning our lessons
So, if the Philippine Congress is contemplating to pass a divorce law, which is pending, it should look up to the lessons learned from the United States and other countries, where divorce laws are in effect.
Filipinos should also bear in mind that if divorce is legalized in the Philippines, it should also be ready with some of its drawbacks.
In the two criminal cases that I am following, divorce has played a silent but significant role in the filing of the cases.
I just realized that when a divorce is obtained, all relations are also cut off.
In the case of the criminal and civil cases filed against prominent Filipino American community leader Ben Menor, the cases started after he divorced his wife. It was Menor’s former brother-in-law, Tito Cortez, who supplied authorities the initial evidence that led to Mr. Menor’s indictment.
“Why should I not rat on Ben?” Mr. Cortez once told me, “He is no longer my relative. In America, if divorce is completed, the relationship is ended.”
I figure if Ben did not divorce his wife, his brother-in-law would not have betrayed him.
Blood is thicker than water
In another case, it was the divorced daughter-in-law of Dr. Jefferson N. Calimlim and his wife, Elnora (nee: Mendoza), also a medical doctor, Sherry, ex-wife of Calimlims’ son, Jack, who ratted them to the federal authorities that her former in-laws were detaining Irma Martinez.
While the Calimlims are facing four years in jail and losing lots of money to the US government and their victim, Mr. Menor could likewise be facing probation or jail time and thousands of dollars in restitution.
Through it all, divorce merely strengthens the popular adage that “blood is thicker than water.”
And it sends a message that if you are hiding something in your closet, make sure to use a lock that even your wife or your in-laws will not be able to break the combination. Otherwise, if your wife or your in-laws got wind of your dirty little secret, you should do your level best to preserve that marriage.
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE Bureau of Immigration hasn’t explained, up to now, why it barred an Irish Catholic priest who co-authored a devastating report on the mining industry, from re-entering the Philippines early January.
“It’s the prerogative of a sovereign country to exclude aliens,” mumbled Immigration regulation chief Gary Mendoza after agents denied entry to 52-year old Father Frank Nally. The Justice Department didn’t reveal why it ordered Nally to fly out, he added. Anyway, government is not duty bound to explain to a person why he landed on the blacklist.
No? We have diplomatic relations with Dublin. And what about reciprocal treatment for Filipino overseas workers? They’re flooding into a country that’s among the top five in the European Union today. And we have diplomatic relations with Dublin.
Equally important is the arbitrariness. Filipino taxpayers ask: how does a Catholic scholar, who heads the prestigious Columban Justice and Faith group in Britain, end up, on the same list, as Al’Qaeda or Abu Sayyaf operatives? And why?
Because Father Nally co-authored “Mining in the Philippines: Concerns and Conflicts”. That’s why. This is a 61-page report on the July-August 2006 fact finding mission led by the former UK Secretary of State for Overseas Development Clare Short. Prepared in cooperation with National University of Ireland and Philippine Indigenous People’s Link, that study is rocking government with its findings.
Mining has a shoddy historical track record. The Philippines is among “the worst countries in the world with regard to tailings, dam failures,” UN Environmental Programme records show. It has a legacy of 800 abandoned mines. The Catholic Bishops Conference, in January 2006, skewered mines in Albay, Palawan, Nueva Vizcaya, South Cotabato, Zamboanga del Norte and Marinduque for massive ecological damage.
“I have never seen anything so systematically destructive as the mining program in the Philippines,” begins Member of Parliament Clare Short. “The environmental effects are as catastrophic as are the effects on the people’s livelihoods.... Government and mining companies should be challenged to demonstrate that ( they will )adhere to their own laws and international mining best practice…
She flayed the World Bank and the EU for spurring destructive mining. EU’s “development interventions are failing in the Philippines to live up to ( it’s declared ) standards: protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and a strong commitment to sustainable development….
“The investor community must behave more responsibly in their investment decisions in the Philippines….”
Would that qualify the Honorable Short for this blacklist too? Who draws up that list anyway? Who can scrub names from it? Is there an appeal or review process in what is basically a secret drill?
“(We) recognize the external pressures on the Philippines as a deeply-indebted country to generate foreign investments,” the main report goes on to say. ( But ) the emphasis on export-driven mining” could diminish development prospects.
“Contrary to recommendations of the ‘Extractive Industries Review’, many of the proposed new mining sites are in areas of conflict, including Mindanao. Government should consider repealing the 1995 Mining Act, enact alternative legislation, as well as create a separate Department of Mines, Hydrocarbons and Geosciences.
The Philippines is one of 17 mega-biodiversity countries. But it is also a geo-hazard hotspot, whiplashed by typhoons, landslides, volcanoes, etc. “It’s environmental stability is already under threat”, raising doubt whether it can meet the eight Millennum Development Goals by 2015.
“Government must therefore exercise extreme caution in authorizing large-scale mining projects….”
On the books are relatively strong laws to protect indigenous peoples and communities. But these are honored more in breach than in practice. Mining in vital watersheds is approved.
By law, indigenous people must give their free, prior, informed consent ( FPIC ) before any project starts within their ancestral lands. But “this consent is often obtained through misinformation, misrepresentation, bribery and intimidation.”
Government agencies…are failing to fulfill their mandate to protect indigenous people’s rights. Many “view the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples as siding with mining companies”. Government should “end the contradictory practice of allowing mining companies to assert prior rights claims over ancestral land.
And the Philippine Senate should ratify ILO Convention 169.
“Human rights abuses and misreporting are clearly associated with some current mining activities…” Companies should publish details of payments, taxes and royalties in accordance with the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative.
“Corruption is a serious problem….Plans for extensive mining operations in remote areas…will make it worse. And those in government and international agencies seem to lack the capacity or inclination to challenge and end such misconduct…” Consider setting up a Mining Ombudsman, the report suggests.
The team doubts the benefits claimed, by mining companies, in exchange for incentives.. “Once revenues are offset against costs – in particular, the environmental costs – the net gain will be far lower than that claimed, by companies and promoters of mining in government.” In addition, “the country may be left with clean-up costs that run into billions of dollars.”
In 1892, the Spanish colonial government sentenced Jose Rizal to destiero in Dapitan, to muzzle his truth-telling. That exile failed.
And deporting, in 2007, a scholar who questioned this country’s mining industry, will flop. It will only embed abuses that sell Filipinos short.
(juanlmercado@gmail.com)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coke or Pepsi: The choice for deputy mayor
|
|
|
|
HOW does the human brain make a decision? Neuroscientists have parlayed this knowledge into an $8-billion industry for the use of product marketing planners. World famous brands have been among the beneficiaries. Examples: Is it Colgate or Crest? Is it McDonalds or Burger King? Is it Coke or Pepsi?
Jersey City is now searching for a deputy mayor. The decision falls on the shoulders of Mayor Jerramiah Healy who it appears is decided to select another Filipino -- to replace the erstwhile Filipino deputy mayor whose alleged financial indiscretions in office have forced him to resign his post.
Believe it or not, if the decision process is subjected to the psychoneurological scientific study to determine how the selection will be done, many of the theories and principles expounded by P. Read Mantague of Bayor College of Medicine and Stanford University’s Brian Knutsen would be relevant and applicable.
Montague performed his version of the Pepsi challenge inside a functional magnetic resonance imaging machine in 2004. He gave 67 persons a blind test of both Coke and Pepsi, then placed the subject in the scanner, which then measured how active cells behaved in measuring the oxygen consumed for energy. The volunteers, after tasting both drinks showed strong activation of the areas of the brain associated with pleasure and satisfaction. They were evenly split.
Montague repeated the tests but the subjects were told ahead of time what they were drinking. This time, three out of four people said they preferred Coke. What happened? The memory region of the medical prefrontal complex and hippocampus also lit up.
Conclusion: brand has value in the brain system above and beyond the desire for the can’s content. All those glamorous celebrities drinking Coke in commercials achieved what they were supposed to achieve -- imprint on the mind associations so powerful they could override a preference for the taste of Pepsi.
Knutsen zeroed in on a more primitive aspect of making choices. “We come equipped to assess potentially good things and potentially bad things”, he says. “There should be stuff in your brain that promotes your survival whether you have learned those things or not -- such as being scared of the dark or the unknown.”
Price was used as a gauge to determine anticipation of pleasant or unpleasant outcomes. Activities involving both emotions appear in corresponding parts of the brain.
“Anticipating emotions not only bias but drive decision making,” concludes Knutsen.
What is the relevance of all this in Mayor Healy’s choice of who should be appointed to replace Equipado? And in its acceptability to the Mayor’s constutuencies? Two candidates for the post were mentioned in this newspaper earlier. The scientific categories of Coke and Pepsi are not cut and dried in relation to the two candidates. But the analytical parallellism seems logical.
Both are prominent personalities but in different spheres. When one consider relevant association which could be the close equivalent of the glamorous celebrities associated with Coke’s celebrity commercial endorsers, one definitedly stands out over the other. Since the post to be filled involves community and public service, one contender towers over the other in past and present endeavors. In Knutsen’s analysis, this unknown in the background of the other contender represents a bias.
Other candidates are mentioned for the post. Perhaps they should not be categorized as Coke or Pepsi. Perhaps as Sarsi?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
