How reforms to legislation will help illegal immigrants

From Dinkar Jain
Under the proposed bill, an illegal immigrant who entered the U.S. in December 2011 will have more economic rights than an MIT engineer who entered the country in 1999, graduated in 2003 and filed for a green card as early as 2003 (more than a decade ago).

In other words, this immigration reform bill has been drafted in such zealous pursuit of votes of the Hispanic community, it enables illegal immigrants to jump the line blatantly and flout any semblance of the rule of law.

This is why, under the registered provisional immigrant status (RPI), an illegal immigrant can change jobs whenever he or she wishes, and can also start a business. There are no restrictions on how an individual on RPI status chooses to lead his or her economic life.

However, an MIT engineer who came to the U.S. in 1999 and graduated in 2003, has been working at IBM since 2003 and applied for a green card is still waiting in line — and even after the passage of this bill it will likely take another 2-3 years before she can obtain her green card. While she waits, if this engineer wanted to instead try a job in sales, she would risk losing her position in the green card line and will have to start over again. If she were to want to start her company and not work at IBM any more, she would be at risk of being deported and her place in the green card line would be lost. She cannot even leave IBM to join Microsoft easily without putting her green card application at risk.

This is basically cutting queue. The solution to this problem is to enhance the economic rights of those who have been waiting for backlogged employment-based green cards for several years. Anyone approved and waiting for an employment-based green card should be allowed the right to start a business or switch job functions and not remain beholden to their employers. This is an important issue for Labor as well, to advance choice and rights of workers.

I urge the Senate and the House to consider amendments to fix this loophole in the bill or forever be accused by professional, educated and successful immigrants in this country of betrayal to the rule of law, disingenuous rhetoric in the pursuit of vote banks and callous legislation.

NJ Governor Christie a liar and a hypocrite

From Rev. Kathryn J. Riss

As a New Jersey voter, I am insulted by Gov. Chris Christie’s assumption that we are so stupid that we will believe his hypocritical lies about his motivation in scheduling two more elections, one in mid-August when it is very hot and people are at the beach enjoying their summer and the second just three weeks before our regular November election. It is obvious that he is doing this not for our benefit or to further democracy, but for his own political advantage.

His statement that he “doesn’t care” about the $24 million costs directly contradicts his veto of early voting, due — according to him — to its EQUAL cost.

He didn’t care about the importance of New Jersey voters choosing their senator then!

It is equally obvious that once he has appointed his Republican senator, the New Jersey Republican Party will not need to run a primary against that incumbent, just the Democrats. This will, of course, mean that the Democrats alone will have to spend the extra time, money and energy for the primary.

And his hypocritical statement that he will “not allow” party leaders to select a Democratic senatorial candidate because the voters should have that right directly contradicts his own solo appointment of the Republican senatorial candidate!

Chris Christie is a liar and a hypocrite, and I am ashamed to have him as governor of our great state.

Piscataway, N.J.

Practice of insider trading should end

From Richard Hellstrom
Do you think most people understand the meaning of inside trading? If you don’t, then you should understand that it’s the trading of the stocks, bonds or other securities in a public company by people who have access to non-public information about the company. Does Congress violate this trust when they buy stocks in companies that contract with the government? I think so.

For example: In 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that there were $6.9 billion of budgeted items in the defense spending bill that it did not need. Congress was made aware of this and approved the bill anyway. Recently it’s lobbying for $436 million to make improvements to the Abrams tank even though the Pentagon doesn’t want the improvements made because they have classified it as outdated and ineffective as an armored fighting vehicle.

In 2006, 151 congressmen had up to $195.5 million invested in companies that received defense contracts that were greater than $5 million. In 2006, these companies benefited by more than $276.5 billion due to government action. This kind of inside trading has led to world wars and conflicts around the globe and is certainly responsible for are current affairs in the Middle East, and the practice should be stopped.
Lexington, Ky.