THE FIL-AM PERSPECTIVE

No more immigration petitions for married children and siblings of US citizens?

MyAsian Journal Column:

No more immigration petitions for married children and siblings of US citizens?.

ONE of the more compelling reasons why many kababayans are pushing for the passing of a comprehensive immigration reform is to facilitate the speeding up of family reunification.

This is especially true for those who have been waiting for many years for their ates or kuyas (with their spouses and kids) to finally re-join the family, after being left behind in the Philippines because they were already married or have aged out when the petition of their parents became current.

It also holds true for nanays and tatays, who have been hoping for decades to have their brothers and sisters join them here in America, in order to fulfill Lolo and Lola’s wish for the whole family to be together again.

There are also many undocumented kababayans, who have not been able to go back home for years or decades, due to fear of being barred in America.

They have missed so many birthdays, Christmases, graduations, weddings -- even funerals.

They are hoping that with the passing of the immigration reform bill, they may finally be able to travel freely and visit the Philippines once again, without worrying about being barred from the US and being able to reunite with their loved ones, once their immigration petitions have been approved.

But with the new proposals being discussed in the Senate, many fear that immigration reform may worsen the situation -- instead, it may do the exact opposite, and these hopeful kababayans may not be reunited with their families, nor fulfill their American dream.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is part of a bipartisan Senate group negotiating the bill, said their aim is to reform the immigration system so it has a “much clearer economic focus.”

As explained by Balitang America’s Pinoy panawagan Legal Counsel Atty. Lou Tancinco, the bi-partisan group of eight US senators is therefore considering decreasing the number of family visas and eliminating two family-based categories.

Although there is no final proposal yet, Atty. Tancinco said that it is likely that the third and fourth family preference categories will be eliminated.

The petitions that will be affected are those by US citizens on behalf of adult, married children and the petitioners’ brothers and sisters.

This plan will reduce family visas by some 90,000 and will limit the ability of US citizens to petition relatives.

Explaining the rationale of this proposal, Sen. Graham said: “Green cards should be reserved for the nuclear family. Green cards are economic engines for the country. This is not a family court we’re dealing with here. We’re dealing about an economic need.”

As the Associated Press reported, unlike most other industrialized nations, the United States awards a much larger proportion of green cards to family members of US citizens and permanent residents than to foreigners with job prospects here.

Green cards are permanent resident visas and allow holders to eventually become citizens in three to five years.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, about two-thirds of permanent legal immigration to the United States is family-based, compared to about 15 percent that is employment-based. The remainder is largely humanitarian.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, there is an annual cap of 226,000 in the family-based category and about 154,000 in the employment-based preferences.

Atty. Tancinco said that the senators are more inclined to increase the allocation of visas for the employment-based category, by reducing the numbers available for family-based petitions -- thus maintaining the total worldwide visa quota.

She commented that the senators’ proposal is based on the assumption that the total number of visas available should not exceed what is provided for by existing law.

Atty. Tancinco lamented that instead of issuing more, visas are simply going to be reallocated.

“The real solution to backlog in both family and employment categories is for visa numbers to be increased across the board, instead of reallocating from one category to the other.”

“The family is undeniably the source of immigrant strength and vitality. When there is a strong family unit and support, immigrants thrive better resulting in significant social and economic benefits,” Atty. Tancinco argued.

“Family members also bring skills and resources. They build businesses and become successful entrepreneurs,” she added.

True enough, we see this scenario in a lot of Filipino families living in the United States.

Atty. Lou pointed out that when family members are petitioned and join their relatives, they can provide much needed care to the elders and to minor children. She said the latter is true, especially in Filipino families with strong networks that care for elderly parents and support minor children.

“If the goal is to attract the best and brightest, making it difficult for relatives to immigrate may produce the opposite effect. Highly skilled and talented individuals may be reluctant to apply for visas to go to the US if other family members will not be able to join them,” she said.

Atty. Tancinco reiterated the point she raised in an earlier interview that I shared through this column. She said there could only be true immigration reform if the immigration system is amended to increase the total numerical worldwide cap, and to increase the per country limit. Atty. Tancinco contended that this is the way to resolve the backlog and to foster family unity.

She argued that favoring employment-based over family-based petitions will not really achieve the set goal.

“When talented and highly-skilled individuals are allowed to petition their families, the employment-based system is actually also strengthened,” Atty. Tancinco explained.

“The immigration system for allocating visas should harmonize family and employment objectives. Only then can we say that there will be a sincere, fair and humane immigration reform.”

What do you think? Should petitions for skilled workers be prioritized over family members, so that the US immigration system will have a “much clearer economic focus?”

A new dawn in the Catholic Church: Long live Pope Francis!

My Asian Journal Column:

A new dawn in the Catholic Church: Long live Pope Francis!

I HAVE been following and writing about the conclave and the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor. But I was pleasantly surprised by my own emotions, when I saw white smoke coming out of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel.

I was glued to the TV screen just before I drove to the TFC studio for Balitang America. I knew I had to leave soon, but I just had to hear the church bells ring to confirm that the next pope has been chosen.

From the time the white smoke came out of the chimney, it took a little more than an hour before the name of the new Pope was made public. The Balitang America staff watched history unfold together before we delivered the news to our TFC (The Filipino Channel) viewers.

“Habemus Papam” or “We have a Pope!”

Some kababayans were disappointed that it was not Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Tagle that the 115 cardinals elected in the conclave to be the 266th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. But it did not take long for most of them, this writer included, to love the new pope.

The chosen one is Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a 76-year-old Jesuit priest from Argentina.

He was the one who came out of the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

His name was not among those rumored to be top contenders for the papacy, so I initially had no idea about his background. I could only look at him as he waved to more than 100,000 Catholics and tourists, who were drenched in rain at St. Peter’s Square.

There was something serene about his aura. Even before he spoke -- his eyes, radiant smile, and gentle demeanor already reflected a humble, caring soul. 

As he spoke to the people in the Square and to Catholics from all over the world; as he requested for the people to pray for him and bless him; as he bestowed his blessing to the crowd; as he lead “The Lord’s Prayer,” “Hail Mary” and “Glory Be,” -- his gentle, reassuring voice calmed my spirit and warmed my heart. I prayed with him.

At that point, I felt a trusting connection with the new pontiff, who chose to be called Francis, after St. Francis of Assisi.

The prayer of St. Francis of Assisi has been my prayer, whenever I need to be grounded on my faith.

“Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.

Where there is hatred, let me sow love;

where there is injury,pardon;

where there is doubt, faith;

where there is despair, hope;

where there is darkness, light;

and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek

to be consoled as to console;

to be understood as to understand;

to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;

it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;

and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen”

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose the name “Francis” as his papal name to honor the 12th century saint known for his simple lifestyle, austerity and dedication to the works of mercy.

My respect for the new pope grew even deeper, when I found out that  he has always lived the prayer of St. Francis in his life.

As you have probably heard by now, Pope Francis as archbishop of Buenos Aires (then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio), moved out of the mansion owned by his diocese and instead chose to live in a small apartment. He took the bus to work, washed his own clothes and lived the life of an ordinary person.

He is a man reported to have deep concern and love for the poor.

Even after being chosen as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis still lives humbly.

He reportedly did not sit on the traditional throne to accept the oaths of allegiance from the cardinals after his election last Wednesday.

He also refused to ride in a private car back to the Santa Marta Residence that night, choosing instead to ride the bus with the cardinals who elected him, personally paid his own hotel bills.

I have always prayed the next Pope would be a Jesuit -- that prayer was answered in Pope Francis. Jesuits are known to be free thinkers, progressive and open minded--think Father Joaquin Bernas and the Ateneo de Manila University brand of education. 

The Jesuits’ motto is to help souls by being a “man for others.” Pope Francis is a living testament to that.

Pope Francis’ lifelong mission is to bring the Catholic Church closer to people. His behavior as a Cardinal then, and as the Pope now, will help knock down the perceived walls of aristocracy that alienates the Vatican from many Catholics.

Through his example, he shows that in order to be a follower of God, one must serve rather than be served.

We have always prayed that our next pope would be somebody who reminds us of Jesus -- not just through what he preaches, but through the life he lives.

As LA Times reported, Pope Francis himself said last year: “Jesus teaches us another way: Go out. Go out and share your testimony, go out and interact with your brothers, go out and share, go out and ask...BECOME THE WORD in body as well as spirit.”

The world now looks up to him with such high expectations, on how he will addresses the challenges, turmoil, corruption and sex scandals in the Catholic Church.

Long live, Pope Francis! You give me hope.

 

(My Asian Journal Column : 

Will Universal Background Checks Help Solve Gun Violence?

 

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

How do we make sure our children are safe from gun-toting criminals? 

 

How do we prevent another massacre (like the tragedy in Newtown Connecticut, where 20 young children and six adults were killed, or the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado) from happening again in America? 

 

Unfortunately, we cannot. 

 

But in his speech in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Monday, President Obama said: “We may not be able to prevent every massacre or random shooting. No law or set of laws can keep our children completely safe. But if there’s even one thing we can do, if there’s just one life we can save, we’ve got an obligation to try.”

 

The President chose to speak in Minneapolis, a city which suffered from a spike in violent crime among young people a few years back -- to prove how such a philosophy could save lives.  

 

“You launched a series of youth initiatives that have reduced the number of young people injured by guns by 40 percent — 40 percent. So when it comes to protecting our children from gun violence, you’ve shown that progress is possible. We’ve still got to deal with the 60 percent that remains, but that 40 percent means lives saved — parents whose hearts aren’t broken, communities that aren’t terrorized and afraid."

 

As the grieving nation grapples with all possible solutions to prevent gun violence in America, one of the measures being pushed by Pres. Obama is for Congress to legislate the need for criminal background checks for anyone trying to buy a gun. 

 

While US law requires background checks for all people who try to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers, federal law does not require background checks for "private transactions," which usually happen in gun shows. 

 

Moreover, many states have their own rulings requiring such checks for private sales.

 

Supporters of stricter gun control laws contend that “universal background checks” may be able to close loopholes in federal gun sales laws.  They say this can help prevent criminals and those with serious mental problems from having access to firearms.

 

How do background checks work?

 

As reported by CNN: “Anytime someone buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer, the dealer is required to run a check on the buyer by submitting the name to the federal database. That database consists of criminal records and mental health records as provided by federal and state courts and agencies.”

 

Lindsay Nichols, an attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said: “Felons, people convicted of violent domestic crimes, and those determined by the courts to be dangerously mentally ill are prohibited by federal law from buying firearms.”

 

“Also, states have added their own categories of who is prohibited from buying a gun...For example, California prohibits gun ownership for people convicted of any kind of violent crime, drug offenses, alcohol abuse and juvenile offenses while underage,” Nichols added.

 

But with the loopholes of the federal gun sales law, Nichols said “Forty percent of all firearms purchased in the United States are sold without background checks because the guns aren't purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer.” 

 

These gun transactions are completed “at gun shows, on street corners, over the Internet or from friends or neighbors” -- all without the required background checks. 

 

Are background checks effective?

 

CNN further reports a statement from the Department of Justice: “From the time when the gun control measures of the Brady Act were enacted on March 1, 1994, through the end of 2008, the federal government processed more than 97 million applications for gun transfers or permits...Almost 1.8 million applications were denied.”

 

"Background checks have a huge deterrent effect. People who are ineligible to buy a gun are unlikely to try if they know they are going to be subjected to a background check," argued Nichols.

 

'Check on law-abiding people'

 

Strong opposition to the push for universal background checks come from the powerful pro-gun lobby group National Rifle Association (NRA).

 

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said on FOX News last Sunday that the universal gun background check system should be called “the check on law-abiding people,” because it’s going to affect law-abiding citizens.

 

The NRA and other pro-gun advocates argue that the universal background check is a “failed system” and is just a waste of scarce resources of law enforcement agencies.

 

LaPierre pointed out that the NRA originally proposed an instant background check system as an amendment to the Brady bill.

 

He said, however, that having been in this fight for twenty years, he doubts that mental health records would ever be computerized. LaPierre said this is the way by which gun dealers can check applicants’ records to see if they have a mental health issue, which will bar them from owning a gun.

 

The NRA also challenged the 40 percent figure for gun sales without background checks -- particularly at gun shows. The group disputes that characterization about the "gun show loophole" because federally licensed firearms dealers participate at gatherings and, of course, conduct background checks.

 

"Most of the guns that are purchased at a gun show are purchased from federal firearms-licensed holders," National Rifle Association President David Keene said on CNN.

 

The NRA and other gun rights advocates allege that all these talks and proposals do not really help in keeping our children safe, and that these have much to do “with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment."

 

'Now is the time for action'

 

President Obama, however, stood firm in his position on gun control measures, citing support of a majority of Americans. 

 

The President said in Minneapolis: “That’s why I need everybody who’s listening to keep the pressure on your member of Congress to do the right thing. Ask them if they support common-sense reforms like requiring universal background checks, or restoring the ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Tell them there’s no legislation to eliminate all guns; there’s no legislation being proposed to subvert the Second Amendment...”

 

“And tell them now is the time for action. That we’re not going to wait until the next Newtown or the next Aurora. We’re not going to wait until after we lose more innocent Americans on street corners all across the country. We’re not going to wait until somebody else’s father or son are murdered.”

 

GALLUP POLL DATA: January 2013: 

  

Readers’ Feedback: Prison Term for Offending Religious Feelings

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

(From Asian Journal)

Carlos Celdran was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of "offending religious feelings," under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. 

 

This stemmed from a complaint filed against him by the Catholic Church  when he staged a protest inside the Manila Cathedral while an ecumenical service (not a mass, as reported by some) was being held.  

 

Dressed like Jose Rizal, he carried a sign that read “Damaso” and shouted that the Church should stop meddling in Philippine politics. This happened during the heat of the debate on the Reproductive Health Bill.

 

According to the Revised Penal Code: “Art. 133. Offending religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

 

Celdran said he would  appeal his case, arguing that the court’s decision was in violation of his freedom of speech, which is protected by the 1987 Philippine Constitution. 

 

His supporters likewise said they will file for a petition to free Celdran because he only exercised his right, invoking Section 4 of the Bill Rights: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

 

They will also start a petition for Congress to repeal Article 133, which they say is in violation of the separation of Church and State, invoking Section 5 of the Bill of Rights: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

 

President Noynoy Aquino expressed sympathy for Celdran and said he hopes the Philippine Catholic priests will emulate the Pope and forgive Celdran, who has already apologized for what he did.

 

Should a person be imprisoned for “offending religious feelings?"

 

Here are some of comments from our readers:

 

"Our constitution is the most powerful law in our country. No Revised Penal Code can nullify its powers." - Critical Thinking Filipinos

 

"Tama lang ginawa sa kanya, labag na sa batas at pambabastos pa sa simbahan! Freedom of Speech -- doon sya sa labas ng simbahan magsisigaw! Pa-epal sya, kita naman sa actions niya sa camera. He deserves it." - Jun Cj Nofies

 

"If you changed the names involved, it would sound like you're talking about Middle Eastern countries. This shouldn't happen in any free and un-oppressed country." -- Dr. Edmond Yabut

 

"Why did he have to offend the Catholic Church in the first place, when our religion in the Philippines is really Catholicism? In the Middle East, there is so much respect for Islam, it is just right to have respect for Catholic faith in the Philippines though there are already some other new religions but still, the Catholic religion dominates the Philippines." - Anna Simpatica Rodriguez Villanueva

 

"If there is truly the notion of freedom of speech, as well as separation of church and state embodied in the Constitution, then the law in question is probably incompatible. Irresponsible though this person may be, any legal sanction against him should be solely on the basis of trespassing or disturbing the peace, if he refused to leave when asked to." - Karl W. Braun

 

"Freedom of speech should not be an act of degradation of one person, a group or an institution... freedom itself has boundaries." - Clinton Rey Mirabel

 

"Article 133 clearly violates Sec. 5 and should be declared as unconstitutional. What if a group of people don't believe in any religion? They would be left unprotected and exposed to offensive ridicule since they don't have any "place devoted to religious worship," or do any kind of "celebration of any religious ceremony!" That violates the Establishment Clause of Sec. 5 as the Phil. gov't would be favoring those with religions over the ones with none." - “Reply”

 

"If the Catholic Church can stomach and even defend the presence of sexual predators within its ranks, it should certainly be able to forgive and tolerate the occasional activist among its flock." - Tiny Defensor

 

"I think that CBCP already forgave [Celdran] but he must face the consequence[s] because he not simply offended religious feelings of people but also God, who is truly present in the tabernacle in the Manila Cathedral." - Inaqz Garz

"Mali eh, sana nilagay nya sa lugar ang protesta nya. Hindi yung ang [lumalabas] ay parang gumgawa lang sya ng eksena para mapag-usapan. Nothing is wrong with self-expression, as long as it is done with taste and a little bit of sensitivity. Nagplanking na lang sana sya sa EDSA." - Ray John

 

"OMG people,  what happend to forgiving and having mercy?  Isn’t that written in the Bible?"- Jonathan Jason Fabiala

 

"Sa Islam nga binibitay pa eh. Ganon lang yun. Kung puro kalayaan mo na lang ang gusto mong ipangalandakan sa mundo, maaari sanang makiramdam ka rin na hindi lang ikaw ang tao sa mundo. Matuto kang makisama sa [mga] taong nasa paligid mo at sa karamihan." - Paolo Delos Angeles

 

"Did Article 133 prevent religious strife in Mindanao? No, because in practice, the Phil. gov't. favors one over the other. That never happens in the US as they practice Sec. 5 to the letter; no need for an Article 133. The Philippines may have Sec. 5 and even an Article 133 to the pot, but in practice favors one over the other that's why there is rebellion in the Mindanao."- R.

 

"Article 133 is sound. It protects the right of people to practice their religion in peace. Section 5 of the constitution does not give favor to any particular religious establishment, it just says that anyone is free to practice whatever religion and the law protects everyone's right to do so. Nullifying Article 133 would allow the non-religious or even opposing religions to disrespect each other even at their own houses of worship. Many, including myself, admire what he did. But he will lose any respect he has earned by not facing the consequences of his actions." - John Galang

Prison Term for “Offending Religious Feelings” ?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

Could and should a person be imprisoned for “offending religious feelings?” In the Philippines, it is possible. That is exactly what the judge ruled in a case filed by Monsignor Nestor Cerbo of the Manila Cathedral (Catholic Church vs Carlos Celdran) over Celdran's violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. 

 

On September 30, 2010, Carlos Celdran staged a protest against the Catholic Church for blocking the passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. He went to the Manila Cathedral dressed as Filipino national hero, Jose Rizal. Inside the cathedral and during an ecumenical service (not MASS but a meeting inside the church), Celdran shouted that the church should stop meddling in government affairs while holding a sign which read: “Damaso.”

 

The sign referred to “Padre Damaso,” the contravida priest in Dr. Jose Rizal’s novel, “Noli Me Tangere.”This anticlerical novel was written by the national hero to expose the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church friars and the Spanish elite during the Spanish era in 19th century colonial Philippines. 

 

In his ruling, Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4 Judge Juan Bermejo Jr. stated: 

“Wherefore, premises considered, accused Carlos Celdran is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Offending Religious Feelings under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of two months and 21 days as minimum to one year, one month and 11 days…” 

 

Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code stipulates:

“Art. 133. Offending religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

 

As soon as this ruling came out, a fiery debate ensued among kababayans in the Philippines.

 

Many question the constitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, arguing that it directly violates Sections 4 and 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states:

 

“Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

 

As these provisions in the Philippine Constitution were patterned after the US Constitution, it is important to understand the spirit and intent of the law, as expressed by Thomas Jefferson:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

 

This would point to the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the same prohibition found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” This is followed by “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” -- known as the “Free Exercise Clause.” 

 

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted by legal experts to prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or the preference by the US government of one religion over another, notwithstanding the right to exercise religion or no religion at all.

 

People ask:  Isn't it therefore a violation of the Constitution to suppress the right to free speech (Section 4 Bill of Rights)  because of Article 133 which could arguably be in violation of  another provision of the Constitution (Section 5, Bill of Rights)  which mandates that "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion"?

 

Kababayans who oppose the judge’s ruling also argue against the use of the clause “acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” Who defines and who decides what is “notoriously offensive”? 

 

Others also wonder if people from other religion (even atheists) enjoy the same protection under the law. And what about the secular groups or people? Can they also file a case against the Catholic Church, if they feel that their feelings are being offended by the religious institution? 

 

Is there a counterpart of the law for the non-religious? If none, then, isn’t this a clear violation of the clause, “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,” in the Philippine Constitution?

 

Those critical of the Catholic Church contend that priests who sexually abuse minors should be the ones sent to prison, as such transgression is a far graver criminal offense than protesting inside the cathedral. They point out that the act of protest is protected by the “Freedom of Speech” clause of the Bill of Rights. 

 

ON THE OTHER HAND, kababayans who support the complaint of the Catholic Church argue that no right is absolute -- that people should exercise their rights responsibly. They contend that the law just makes sure that exercising one’s right does not cross the line and offend other people -- in this case, the religious feelings of Catholics.

 

They say Celdran could exercise his “freedom of speech,” but he should have chosen a better venue. Staging his protest IN the cathedral (which is a place of worship for Catholics) is a clear violation of Article 133.

 

Celdran said he would appeal against the court’s decision, arguing that this uncommonly-used law is a threat to freedom of speech. 

 

“I am calm but I am going to fight this till the end,” Celdran posted on Twitter. And this legal battle may go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

 

Legal experts say unless the Supreme Court rules that Article 133 is unconstitutional, then Celdran will have to face the consequences of his action pursuant to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

 

After listening to both sides of the argument, what is your opinion? Do you think Carlos Celdran SHOULD go to prison for "offending religious feelings?"

 

 

 

New immigration ruling on provisional waivers for TnTs: Beware of scams!

By Gel Santos Relos

 

AFTER the announcement of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Nepolitano on a new ruling, which will give immediate family members of US citizens unlawfully staying in the United States provisional waivers so they can continue to live in the US while awaiting their green card, we have seen spikes of advertisements in both traditional and online media that promise to expedite green cards for TnTs.

 

These ads capitalize on the impression that the new ruling is a “backdoor amnesty,” and that it covers ALL undocumented spouse, children, or parents of American citizens.

Before you become victims of some unscrupulous vultures, who will jump at any opportunity to capitalize on peoples’ desperation to avoid deportation, please read on.

 

I interviewed Balitang America’s “Pinoy Panawagan” segment legal counsel Atty. Lou Tancinco on this, and she explained the fine details of this new ruling.

 

First of all, Atty. Tancinco clarified that this ruling is NOT amnesty, is NOT applicable to all TnT spouse, children or parents, nor does it enable the qualified TnTs to cut the line and be ahead of other immigration applicants who followed the rules. They need to have an APPROVED PETITION before they can even apply for the provisional waivers. They will not even be able get any work permit or advance parole may be applied for, while the provisional waiver is pending.

 

Looking at the bigger perspective, Atty. Tancinco said that even before this ruling (which is set to take effect on March 4) there have already been “traditional waivers” available to some immediate family members of US citizens and even lawful permanent residents, who may have some issues in the processing of their petition for immigration-based family relations.

 

How then is the new ruling different from the traditional waiver? Who are really covered and what are the limits to the benefits they will presumably enjoy as a result of this new ruling?

 

Atty. Tancinco sent me this scenario via email to explain the difference so our kababayans may understand the fine prints of this new ruling:

 

“JOSEPINE entered the United States through the US-Canada border. She did not have a valid US visa and took her chances of hitching a ride with family friends to cross the border from Vancouver. Upon her arrival in 2005, she engaged in unauthorized employment. She met her US citizen spouse at work and a petition was filed on her behalf.

The petition was approved but Josephine was told to leave the country to get her visa at the US Embassy in Manila. Josephine refused to leave because she was not sure whether she could return to the United States after departing. She has two US citizen minor children and one of them has a disability. Will Josephine benefit from the new provisional waiver? How different is this provisional waiver from the traditional waiver?

To distinguish the traditional waiver from the provisional waiver, the new rules now allows the applicant who is undergoing consular processing to file the waiver within the United States even prior to departure to get the immigrant visa in a US Embassy abroad. This helps foster family unity while the waiver process is pending.

Generally, an applicant for immigrant visa may obtain the visa either through (1) adjustment of status or (2) consular processing at the US Embassy abroad. Those who are in the United States and entered with inspection or were admitted, even if they are currently out of status,  MAY apply for their visas within the United States through the adjustment of status process.

On the other hand, those who are residing in the United States but were NOT admitted (like when they illegally crossed the borders or seamen who jumped ship), or fall under the category of those who are NOT eligible to adjust (like those who enetered the US with a fiance visa but ended up not marrying this fiance who filed the petition),  must obtain their visas at a US Embassy abroad, through consular processing.

Those who have no immigration violations or have not overstayed in the United States will not encounter the usual delay in obtaining the visa abroad if the immigrant visa is available. The problem arises for those who have incurred “unlawful presence” of more than 6-months and are required to do consular processing.

For the latter, who are required to depart to get their visas abroad, the process is usually terrifying because of the uncertainty of their ability to return, as well as the long period of separation from family for many months, if not years. This fear is alleviated by the ability of these individuals to file for a stateside or provisional waiver. This is DIFFERENT from the traditional waiver process.

In the traditional waiver processing application, the individual may either be the spouse, parent, child (adult or minor) of a US citizen, or a lawful permanent resident. A petition for relative is filed and the visa is available except that there are reasons for the denial of the visa. These reasons are referred to as “grounds for inadmissibility.”

Examples of such grounds (1) fraud and misrepresentation; (2) certain criminal offenses; (3) health-related grounds; (4) smugglers; (5) previous removal order and (6) 3-10 year bar. All these reasons for denial may be overcome by filing the I-601.

If this waiver is granted, the immigrant visa will be issued. The traditional waiver is filed within the United States for adjustment of status. For those consular processing, the individual applicant may only file the waiver after the interview with the consular officer when he is required to file the waiver before the immigrant visa is issued. With the provisional waiver, this waiver may now be filed within the United States prior to departing and applying for the visa abroad.

Unlike the traditional waiver, the new provisional waiver only applies to immediate relatives of US citizens. Immediate relatives of lawful permanent residents are NOT covered by this new rule. In addition, it is important to note that the NOT ALL the grounds of inadmissibility will be included in the provisional waiver. Only the “unlawful presence” or the 3-10 year bars will be waived. Also, there is no appeal to the denial of the provisional waiver application unlike the traditional waiver.

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services also made it clear in the published rules that no employment authorization or advance parole may be applied for while the provisional waiver is pending. The standards set for determining extreme hardship to US citizen spouse or parents will be the same for both provisional and traditional waivers.” Read more: How does USCIS define "hardship"?

 

GOING BACK to the case illustrated earlier, Atty. Tancinco said “since Josephine is not eligible to adjust, she may take advantage of the provisional waiver when the rules take effect on March 4, 2013. If the waiver is approved and that no other grounds for inadmissibility exists, her departure to the US Embassy in Manila to get her visa will assure her return within a reasonable time.”

 

Atty. Lou Tancinco reminded us that while the final rules on Provisional/Stateside Waivers released last week might have excited thousands of family members waiting for an opportunity to legalize, we need to be cognizant of this ruling’s limited applicability.

 

Please be guided by this information. Huwag magpapaloko. Kindly share this with family and friends who may benefit from this.

 

(My Asian Journal column article for January 16, 2013)

PHOTO CREDIT: The Blaze

Extreme Hardship Waiver: Good News for Fil-Am Families with TnTs

By Gel Santos Relos

 

THE start of new year has brought forth a new reason for kababayans to look forward to 2013 with a renewed sense of optimism in their seemingly elusive dream of being able to live with their family in America without fear of being prosecuted and deported.

 

On January 2, the Obama administration announced a new immigration rule that would shorten the time for undocumented immigrants to endure being separated from family members, who are already US citizens.

 

Beginning March 4, qualified undocumented immigrants who are immediate relatives of US citizens may already apply for the “extreme hardship”  waiver. To be granted this waiver, they  have to prove that their family in America would experience extreme hardship if they could not return to the United States from their country of origin.

 

This new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ruling will benefit about a million of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, who are spouses, children or parents of US citizens. This waiver will allow them to stay in the United States, while waiting for permanent residency status.

 

When their petition for “extreme hardship” is approved, they will still have to go back to their country of origin -- but only for them to pick up their visa, and then come back to the United States.

 

Under the old rule, those who have overstayed in the US will have to wait for at least 10 years, because of the “ten-year ban” immigration policy, before they could be considered for the privilege of setting foot in the United States again.

 

This new ruling will cut the waiting time and help families of US citizens be reunited faster.

 

How is “extreme hardship” defined? Who qualifies for this waiver?

 

According to the website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), there are identifying broad factors that have been cited in existing precedent decisions as relevant to the evaluation of whether deportation would result in extreme hardship to the alien or to his or her qualified relative. These factors are:

 

1. the age of the alien, both at the time of entry to the United States and at the time of application for suspension of deportation;

2. the age, number, and immigration status of the alien’s children an d their ability to speak the native language and adjust to life in another country;

3. the health condition of the alien or the alien’s child, spouse, or parent and the availability of any required medical treatment in the country to which the alien would be returned;

4.  the alien’s ability to obtain employment in the country to which the alien would be returned;

5.  the length of residence in the United States;

6.  the existence of other family members who will be legally residing in the United States;

7.  the financial impact of the alien’s departure;

8.  the impact of a disruption of educational opportunities;

9.  the psychological impact of the alien’s deportation or removal;

10 .the current political and economic conditions in the country to which the alien would be returned;

11. family and other ties to the country to which the alien would be returned;

12. contributions to and ties to a community in the United States, including the degree of integration into society;

13. immigration history, including authorized residence in the United States; and

14. the availability of other means of adjusting to permanent resident status.

 

USCIS further noted that ultimately, “extreme hardship” must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis after a review of all the circumstances in the case, and none of the listed factors alone, or taken together, automatically establishes a claim of extreme hardship. Nor is the list exhaustive, as there may be other factors relevant to the issue of extreme hardship in a particular case.

 

And with respect to this new ruling, the government may come up with even more specific guidelines.

 

Already, kababayans and other immigrants who followed the rules and waited in line for a long time are questioning and opposing this new policy. They call this “backdoor amnesty” and contend that this is grossly unfair for law-abiding citizens and their families.

 

On the other hand, supporters of this policy explained that “it’s a way to streamline the extreme hardship process, in the best interest of families. The government accepted the extreme hardship cases of about 70 percent of applicants last year. But this would make the process actually work, turning an ordeal that lasts months or years into one that lasts days or weeks.”

 

Many, even among our own kababayans, took the risk of coming to the United States as tourists, and then stayed in the country even beyond the time period stipulated in their I-94. Some of these TnTs have pending petitions but could not wait for a long time away from their families.

 

Others enter the United States from the borders, without any legal documents that give them the privilege to be in the country even as visitors. Some are crew men or seamen who jumped ship.

 

They became out of status -- living in America without any legal “papel.” Many were able to work “under the table,” without work authorization. Others came in as single, and then found love in the process.

 

Whatever the circumstance, these undocumented immigrants have been living in fear or isolation for a long time.

 

They opted for “kapit sa patalim,” -- risking everything just to be with their family in the United States. This is especially true for fathers or mothers with young children. Each year away meant one year of missing out on raising their own kids.

 

This would also explain the decision of many undocumented children, who chose to take the risk of staying here in the United States just to take care of their old and ailing US citizen parents.

 

This would also be true for the lolos and lolas who have overstayed and have become TnTs, because they could not bear not helping take care of their apos while their children work hard for a living in this tough economic times.

 

If you think you or your loved ones qualify, it is best to seek the counsel of your trusted immigration attorney.

 

Happy New Year!

 

(My Asian Journal Column)

 

Bakit Natalo si Pacquiao? : The intersection of religion, politics and metaphysics

By Gel Santos Relos

 

If there is anyone who still has doubts about the powerful influence of our Pambansang Kamao Manny Pacquiao, particularly among Filipinos in every corner of the world, then the fourth bout between the Pacman and Mexican Juan Manuel Marquez must have already knocked that out for good.

 

After Pacquiao was knocked out by Marquez in the sixth round, we found our iconic boxing hero unconscious and motionless -- his face facing the floor. The Pacman lost, and so was the morale of many Filipinos. Trying to make sense of this painful defeat, kababayans from all over the world bantered endlessly for days, and there we find the testament to how Manny Pacquiao has that power to make religion, politics, and metaphysics collide!

 

Exhibit A: Metaphysics and the cosmic energy

 

Fil-Am Republicans find this absurd and crazy: some people blame the Pacman’s loss to Mitt Romney. And this theory has been talked about even in US mainstream media.

 

Mitt Romney was reported to have sat in the front row at the MGM Grand Garden to watch the bout along with his wife, Ann. Just two hours before Pacquiao walked to the ring to fight Marquez, Romney reportedly went to Pacquiao's dressing room, extended his hand to Pacquiao and said, "Hi Manny. I ran for president and lost."

 

Some Filipinos theorized that Romney must have rubbed off his bad karma to Pacquiao through that handshake. Moreover, the words Romney uttered to Pacquiao was said to have echoed vibrations of defeat, pulling down the Pacman’s winning energy.

 

As staunch Obama supporter and Fil-Am community leader Rodel Rodis wrote, “If Romney visits you before a fight and reminds you he lost the elections, is that pep talk from him going to inspire you to win?”

 

Exhibit B: Politics and sports? 'Tubig at langis'

 

Many kababayans (especially those who do not believe in Manny Pacquiao’s qualification and mettle to hold any position in government) present this recent loss, as evidence that boxing and politics do not mix.

 

They argue that Manny has become the greatest boxer of his time, because he was focused on his being a sportsman. He dedicated all his time and energy in training for his fight.

 

When he entered politics, many Filipinos said our Pambansang Kamao has lost his edge as a boxer. They also said he has also proven his detractors right- that he would be a mediocre, if not bad, elected Congressman of Sarangani. 

 

They contended that the Pacman has notoriously earned the dishonor of being one of the Members of the House of Representatives with the most number of absences. Moreover, he reportedly did not have any bills yet enacted into law that would help the people of Sarangani.

 

These Filipinos say Manny Pacquiao has to choose -- be a boxer or a politician. Even his own mother, Aling Dionisia, said after the fight: “Kung ako magdedesisyon, gusto ko magpahinga na si Manny, relax na lang siya. Politician ang anak ko, doon na lang siya magserbisyo.

 

Exhibit C : No separation between religion and sports

 

It is more fun in the Philippines, we all say. Everything is just interconnected. We cannot even separate religion from politics. What makes us think we can remove religion from sports? Not even Manny’s equally famous mother Nanay Dionisia thinks so.

 

Aling Dionisia (fondly called Mommy D) blames her son’s change of religion for his loss. Pacquiao is no longer a Catolico cerrado, and is now a Born-again Christian. 

 

After Manny’s two successive losses, feisty Mommy D passionately said in an interview with DZMM: “Gusto ko wag niyang iwanan ang sign of the cross kasi yan ang nakayaman sa kanya noon, ang dami ng panalo niya.” 

 

 
Manny used to wear his rosary when he enters the ring, makes the sign of the cross, kisses the crucific before taking it off just before Round 1 in every fight before he became a Born-again Christian. 

 

"Nalungkutan ko lang parang kulang ensayo ng anak ko, pirmi busy reading Bible sa bahay. Kulang ang ensayo niya, bising-busy talaga siya....Kailangan face-to-face ang ibigay sa Diyos na galing ng puso, na totoong-totoo na walang kapalit ang pagdasal natin," the mother lamented.

 

"Gusto kong ibalik niya ang dati niya. Tutal ang Catholic naman, wala naman naghihingi ng araw-araw magsimba, isang oras lang hiningi ng Diyos," added Mommy Dionisia. (Watch Mommy Dionisia unleash her sentiment about Manny's leaving the Catholic faith:)

 

AT ANO ANG SABI NI MANNY?

How Manny’s greatness as a sportsman shines even in his loss

 

After Marquez was declared the winner, Manny Pacquiao was reported to be the first Filipino in the MGM arena to smile. He reached out to Marquez and congratulated him. 

 

The Pacman also offered no excuses for his defeat, other than his self-deprecating statement that he must have been overconfident, that was why he lost.  

 

Indeed, our Pambansang Kamao, Manny Pacquiao, has once again showed us why he is the greatest boxer of his time. He has demonstrated how he can be gracious in defeat, as much as in victory. 

 

While the KO loss of Pacquiao to Marquez may have dampened the morale of many Filipinos, let us look at the big picture and remember all the honor he has earned and offered to the Philippines. As Wikipedia summarized: He is the first eight-division world champion in which he has won ten world titles, as well as the first to win the lineal championship in four different weight classes.

 

He has been named “Fighter of the Decade” for the 2000s (decade) by the Boxing Writers Association of America (BWAA), World Boxing Council (WBC) and World Boxing Organization (WBO). 

 

Manny Pacquiao is also a three-time The Ring and BWAA “Fighter of the Year,” winning the award in 2006, 2008 and 2009, and the Best Fighter ESPY Award  in 2009 and 2011. He has also long been rated as the “best pound-for-pound boxer” in the world  by some sporting news and boxing websites.

 

Amid all speculations and disappointments, Pacquiao issued the following statement: “First and foremost I would like to thank God for keeping Juan Manuel Márquez and me safe during our fight on Saturday night. I want to congratulate Juan Manuel. I have no excuses. It was a good fight and he deserved the victory. I think boxing fans, who watched us, were winners too."

 

“To all my fans, I would like to thank you for your prayers and assure you that I am fine. I am looking forward to a nice rest and then I will be back to fight. On behalf of Jinkee and our family we would like to wish everyone a joyous Christmas and a happy and healthy new year,” Pacquiao further said.

 

 

 

 

 

Fil-Ams Moving Beyond Election Blues and Divisiveness

By Gel Santos Relos

 

Many Americans, including Fil-Ams, heavily invested in the recently concluded US Presidential elections. Some contributed cash for their candidates, others volunteered to help in their campaigns, and many were passionately engaged in the presidential debates, to persuade others to vote for the candidate which they thought was the better choice to lead this country. 

 

On November 6, the American people made their choice. President Barack Obama has been re-elected through gaining the required absolute majority of electoral votes and the absolute majority of the popular votes. 

 

Some kababayans in the United States and from the Philippines (who were rooting for an Obama re-election) were wondering why there were Fil-Ams who supported Gov. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party. After all, they would say, the Democratic Party has positioned itself as the party that looks after the needs and interests of the immigrant communities and of the disadvantaged sectors of society.

 

Some speculated that Fil-Ams who voted for Romney did so because of colonial mentality and racial discrimination, alleging that Republican-leaning Fil-Ams have a low regard for persons of color, (especially black people) thanks to more than three hundred years of western colonization and mental conditioning, that “white is beautiful.” 

 

They said that Republican-leaning Fil-Ams could not fathom the idea that a man like Barack Obama can be elected, and even be re-elected, as President of the United States. 

 

While there may be kababayans who consciously or subconsciously think this way, I believe this is a hasty generalization of how Republican Fil-Ams made their choice. The truth is, many Fil-Am Republicans seriously weighed in on issues.

 

This good family Fil-Am friend of mine from the South voted for Romney because as a self-employed doctor, he believes Obamacare does not help his practice at all. He also worries about how it will affect the capacity of small businesses to keep full-time employees. 

 

This doctor is married to a Fil-Am accountant who has been trained to make ends meet and balance their family's finances. She has struggled with the Democrats' philosophy of spending beyond the country's means and subscribes to the Republicans' conservative fiscal principles as the way to save the country from falling off the fiscal cliff.

 

This doctor-accountant Fil-Am couple choose to be Republican because of the issues and not because they are discriminating against President Obama's skin color. In fact, their  daughter is married to an African-American and they respect, love and  get along very well with their son-in-law.

 

Another Fil-Am from the West Coast supports the Republican Party because of the long wait his family has been enduring, to be reunited with other family members that they petitioned for, based on US immigration laws. 

 

They have paid all the required fees and did all the necessary filing, but are still waiting for their priority dates to become current. Many kababayans, like him, believe the US government should be strict in implementing immigration laws, especially during these tough economic times. 

 

They do not agree that scarce jobs and limited resources should be shared with the undocumented, at the expense of those who comply with immigration rules and pay their taxes.

 

There is another long-time Republican Fil-Am who believes that the Republican party stands for her own religious values and moral principles. She was raised Catholic in the Philippines and disagrees with the Democrats'  pro-choice position on abortion and the use of artificial contraceptives. 

 

She also says she respects gay people. What she opposes, though, is the sexual act between people of the same sex. She affirms that she does not discriminate against them, in fact she has a son who is gay.

 

And these are but a few examples. There are many more Fil-Ams with their own  process of discernemnt in making their choice. This is something they take seriously and conscientiously.

 

Conversely, it is also unfair to characterize Fil-Ams who voted for President Barack Obama as mendicants, lazy, non-religious and dependent on government. In fact, many of them are highly educated, gainfully employed and hardworking. 

 

Most of them are also Catholic Christians, who believe the Democratic Party embodies social justice and Jesus Christ's teaching on “love for others." 

 

This is why many criticized Romney’s statement, that President Obama won because he gave “gifts” to targeted voter groups:ethnic minorities, women, youth, etc. 

 

They say this unfairly mischaracterizes them, as much as Romney's previous statement that “47 percent of Americans -- those who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it -- will vote for Obama no matter what.”

 

They asserted that they voted for Obama because they believe that his policies and leadership are what the country needs to move forward.

 

Here are some of the comments of our kababayans who voted for Obama, responding to Romney's statement:

 

"Romney was promising lots of 'gifts' too, for the very, very rich. Problem is, he didn't win. He lost, fair and square, and with very little grace. Defeat shows a man's true character". - Tammy Monsod

 

"Romney's loss is attributable to a combination of forces, but mainly because of his untrustworthiness (changing his position on countless important issues), a deemed major character flaw (remember his '47 percent' comment). He double talked his way through the campaign. Shutting up at this time instead of trashing the voters will do him and his, seemingly out of touch, party good." - Oj Jorge

 

"We got no gifts, other than we already have our innate gifts of talents, time and limited retired incomes that we maximized, synergized and let out in full bloom to vote and re-elect President Obama. Why? No self-respecting woman would vote for a presidential candidate who does not know what he stands for, who panders to any base, who flip-flops, and who demeans women..." - Prosy Delacruz

 

"It might be true, Pres Obama supported same-sex marriage and promised immigration reform before the elections and Hispanics thought he owes them his victory! But although [these] might be true, [they are] part of a political strategy of changing [the] face of America brought by open immigration that Republicans must realize. Obama won and he is our President...we need to support him for the sake of this country." - MariFren Ranile

 

The aforementioned misconceptions  and statements from both sides of the political fence against one another may be indicative of the divide among our kababayans here in America, enflamed by heated passion for the recent political season. But the election is over. Our divided past need not affect our future, as members of the Fil-Am community.

 

The recent conciliatory tone of the leaders in Washington -- both Republicans and Democrats -- should, hopefully, motivate us to go past our differences, and focus more on what we share in common.

 

Regardless of whom we voted for, we are all Americans and we are all in this together. The success of the Obama presidency in the next four years will be the success of America. We can only hope for real results from Washington to solve the nation’s problems -- hijacked for so long, because of the political gridlock.

 

Cheers to a new beginning! HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

 

PHOTO CREDIT: The Christian Science Monitor

(My Asian Journal Column Article, November 21, 22, 23, 2012)

Romney's "Election Post-Mortem Blues"

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

A week after the contentious election, President Obama in his press conference praised Gov. Mitt Romney and expressed how he looks forward to talking with him and hear how he may be able to help the country with his ideas in the next four years. 

 

"There may be ideas that he has with respect to jobs and growth that can help middle-class families that I want to hear....I’m not either pre-judging what he’s interested in doing, nor am I suggesting I’ve got some specific assignment. But what I want to do is to is to get ideas from him and see if there are some ways that we can potentially work together,” President Obama said.

 

It seems to be a good idea to see the two men really work together, because after all, both ran for office because of their deep love for the country and their genuine desire to help the American people. 

 

Romney’s gracious concession speech earned him a lot of respect and admiration even from among those who did not vote for him, especially when he said:

 

“The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this, we can’t risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people’s work...And we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics....I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes to lead the country in a different direction, but the nation chose another leader. And so Ann and I join with you to earnestly pray for him and for this great nation...”

 

But what Mitt Romney said on Wednesday to his campaign donors seem to echo a different tone, and the audio of what he said was obtained by ABC news.

 

Gov. Romney reportedly said that President Obama’s campaign “focused on giving targeted groups a big gift -- so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars.” 

 

As LA Times reported:

 

“Romney argued Obama had been ‘very generous’ to blacks, Hispanics and young voters. He cited as motivating factors to young voters the administration’s plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest and the extension of health coverage for students on their parents’ insurance plans well into their 20s. 

 

Free contraception coverage under Obama’s healthcare plan, he added, gave an extra incentive to college-age women to back the president.’

 

Romney argued that Obama’s healthcare plan’s promise of coverage ‘in perpetuity’ was ‘highly motivational’ to those voters making $25,000 to $35,000 who might not have been covered, as well as to African American and Hispanic voters. 

 

Pivoting to immigration, Romney said the Obama campaign’s efforts to paint him as ‘anti-immigrant’ had been effective and that the administration’s promise to offer what he called ‘amnesty’ to the children of illegal immigrants had helped turn out Hispanic voters in record numbers.”

While some Romney supporters -- even among our kababayans -- may openly or silently agree with Romney on this, after a painful and what he described as an “unexpected” loss, not everyone in his party is on board with his post-mortem approach. 

 

 

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who was speaking at the Republican Governors Association confab in Las Vegas, was reported by ABC News to have dismissed Romney’s explanation.  

 

Jindal said, “I don’t think that represents where we are as a party and where we’re going as a party...If we’re going to continue to be a competitive party and win elections on the national stage and continue to fight for our conservative principles, we need two messages to get out loudly and clearly: One, we are fighting for 100 percent of the votes, and secondly, our policies benefit every American who wants to pursue the American dream.”

 

Romney’s own campaign spokesperson said: “I don’t think the Obama campaign gets enough credit for actually changing the electorate...I think their turnout model is extraordinary. They did very well, and they made sure they had the exact model of the electorate that they needed to win.”

 

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour called for a “brutally honest assessment of what we did,” and recommended “a very serious proctology exam” for the Republican Party.

 

"We need to figure out what we did right and what we did wrong, how we can improve our tone, our message, our technology, our turnout – all the things that are required to win elections," Virginia Gov. McDonnell said.

 

This latest statement of Romney just reminds many of his controversial “47%" statement when he was speaking in a fundraising event. Romney said  47 % of Americans-- those who are dependent on government-- will vote for Obama no matter what.  Faced with criticisms, he said this statement did not represent what he really stood for -- that is, he wants to serve 100% of Americans as President. 

 

I am giving Governor Romney the benefit of the doubt that his tone, as he was speaking to his campaign donors about this “gift” of Obama to his voters, was that of a CEO reporting to and being accountable to his investors. 

 

But like many Americans , I hope Gov. Romney will rise above the election post-mortem blues and lead his supporters toward healing and unity.  

 

Regardless of who we voted for, we are all Americans and we are all in this together. The success of the Obama presidency in the next four years will be the success of America. We can only hope for real results from Washington to solve the nation’s problems -- hijacked for so long, because of gridlock in politics.