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?”

Can the Next Pope Revitalize the Catholic Church?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

Who will be the next Pope? 

 

This has been the question many people have been asking after the surprise resignation of Pope Benedict XVI last Monday. 

 

Kababayans from all over the world even went as far as to ask: Could the next leader of the Catholic Church be Filipino? 

 

According to Reuters, Manila Archbishop Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle is among the list of potential candidates. While no official list has been made public yet, Reuters' list reportedly included the 55-year old Tagle, who has been reportedly compared to the late Pope John Paul II, in terms of leadership style.

 

The announcement of the Pope’s resignation (effective February 28) has fueled a lot of discussions about the present state of the Catholic Church and speculations about the organized religion’s future. 

 

A Pope's resignation has not happened in the last 600 years, prompting many people to ask: Why now, when the Church is facing a lot of challenges? When it is desperately trying to fulfill its mission, in a world that has increasingly become more secular?

 

The Vatican’s official statement about the Pope’s resignation, however, seemed to show that the Pope’s decision supports the greater mission of the Church. 

The 86-year-old Pontiff resigned due to lack of physical strength and his frail health -- impediments for him  to effectively lead 1.2 billion Catholics in this time of turmoil.

 

Though saddened by the news, faithful followers have accepted and respected the Pope’s decision. They praised him for his humility and courage in making that decision. They say that this proves that the Pope believes the papacy is bigger than him, and that he will not allow himself to get in the way of the Catholic Church’s fulfillment of its mission -- proclaiming the Good News about Jesus Christ’s salvation of mankind, and helping people around the world be saved through the Catholic Church.

 

The Pope has been accused of covering up sexual abuse of children by priests, when he was still Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger. 

 

Critics -- especially victims of alleged sexual abuse by Catholic priests -- said that while Pope Benedict XVI may have sounded and appeared compassionate about their plight, he has not really done anything about the situation. 

 

Now, his detractors challenge him to do the right thing: open the records of the Church and expose the names of the clergymen, who have been accused of sex abuse. They ask him to turn these records over to secular law enforcement agencies and let the State (not the Church) put them on trial and make them pay for the consequences of their actions, as secular people are asked to do. 

 

This, they say is in line with the kind of justice, fairness and true compassion they expect from the Catholic Church.

 

With Pope Benedict's resignation, the Catholic Church faces a crossroad in its 2,000-year-old history. Many people wonder if this impending change in leadership will bring about reforms that many followers have been clamoring for. 

 

Will the still-to-be-named successor help the Catholic Church connect with the changing world, or will he carry on Pope Benedict XVI’s conservative and uncompromising position on social and theological issues?

 

Will he allow women to be ordained as priests? 

 

Will he heed the call to allow priests to be married and have a family? 

 

Will he bless the union of gay people in the holy sacrament of matrimony? 

 

Will he allow the use of birth control methods (other than abstinence and the calendar method)? 

 

Will he endorse the theory of evolution? 

 

Will he support embryonic stem cell research? 

 

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Pope Benedict XVI is expected to go into isolation after his resignation, so as not to influence the decision of the cardinals, as they elect a successor in a secret conclave. 

 

Lombardi said the new leader of the Roman Catholic Church could be elected as soon as Palm Sunday (March 24) and be ready to take over by Easter (March 31).

 

Who do you think will be the new Pope? Do you think Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle has a chance to become the first Filipino Pope? 

 

If you can have a say in the election process, what attributes do you want the new pontiff to have? How can he stop disillusioned and disappointed Catholics from leaving the flock?  How do you think can the new Pope revitalize the Catholic Church?

(My Asian Journal Column article)

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

The US Presidential Race is On: Are you leaning Republican? (1st of 2)

 

By Gel Santos Relos

 

"They came, not just in pursuit of the riches of this world,
but for the richness of this life.  Freedom, freedom of
religion, freedom to speak their mind, freedom to build a life
and, yes, freedom to build a business with their own hands.
   This is the essence of the American experience."

- Gov. Mitt Romney

 

The 2012 Presidential Race has officially started last week with Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan accepting the Republican Party’s nomination for President and Vice President in Tampa, Florida. Game on!

 

They are fighting toe-to-toe with the incumbent team of President Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who are running for their second term. Obama and Biden are set to accept their party’s nomination during the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

 

If you are new to the US Presidential Election, here's a quick primer: 

 

There are two major political parties competing in the political discourse and elections: the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, although there have been many times when this two-party system have been challenged and rocked by a third party or independent candidate.

 

Each party conducts its own primary elections in every state, whereby each presidential candidate campaigns, engages in debates and tries to make his/her case among the party voters, that he/she best represents their party’s principles and has the “winnability” to defeat the other party’s candidate. The candidate who wins the majority vote among the total number of delegates wins the party’s nomination.

 

After his failed attempt in 2008 (John McCain won the party’s nomination), 2012 has proven to be Mitt Romney’s year to represent his party. The party nominee then exercised his first executive decision, choosing his Vice-Presidential candidate. Of the many names speculated and actually vetted to be the number 2 in the ticket, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan became Romney’s choice.

 

In our daily polls, man-on-the-street interviews, website comments and previous presidential elections townhall meeting on Balitang America, it seems many kababayans in America are leaning Republican. (Balitang America Poll) But just what exactly does the Republican Party stand for, and what makes many Filipinos gravitate toward the Republican Party?

 

The biggest draw to the Republican Party for many kababayans in America is the GOP’s (Grand Old Party) conservative principles, anchored on Christian values. Having come from a Catholic-dominated motherland, many Filipinos in America equate being Republican to being faithful to our Filipino roots and Catholic faith. 

 

This is pronounced most in the stand of the party against the use of artificial contraceptives, legalization of abortion, fight against gay marriage, etc. Some go as far as aligning themselves with some hardcore GOPs, who do not believe in climate change and the theory of evolution of man. These principles very much affect the public policy of the party in terms of the issues concerning education, energy, environment protection, LGBT rights, womens’ rights, etc.

 

Another hot button issue for many Pinoys is the fight against illegal immigration. This is very important especially for those who waited in line for their immigration petitions to be approved, those who had to endure long years of separation before they finally got to be reunited with their families upon issuance of immigration visa the legal way, those who had to pay fees to obtain immigration benefits. 

 

For these Pinoys, dura lex sed lex is their principle. The law may be harsh but it is still the law, and they are adamant against amnesty or special privileges given to TnTs, even for humanitarian reasons.

 

The Republican platform of making people pay less taxes is another important consideration for kababayans. They hurt to see a big chunk of their paycheck go to Uncle Sam. They adhere to the GOP’s mantra of small government, low taxes, and the liberty to do what an individual wants to do with his hard-earned money.

 

This is even complicated further by the aforementioned immigration debate, whereby they believe it is grossly unfair for the government to use their tax money to support the needs of many TnTs, even those who are among their own people. But then again, here is where it gets ironic -- many Filipinos hate paying taxes but feel entitled to receive benefits from the government. 

 

The Republicans also adhere to the economic principle of “free market” and as we have always heard in the campaign speeches, each American’s individual achievement is the primary factor behind economic prosperity.  This means allowing market forces to dictate the fate of the economy and going against too much government regulations.

 

More income, less expenditures means, equals more profit -- and the free market system supports corporations exhausting every options to stay competitive and offer bigger dividends to its investors. An example of this is the Republicans' aproval of companies outsourcing jobs.  This means less jobs in America but of course, more jobs in the Philippines.

 

The GOP believes that the prescription to prosperity is the “trickle down” economy -- giving tax breaks and freedom for businesses to maximize profit, and this will somehow lead to business expansion, more hiring and a more robust economy. This, of course, has always been contested by the Democratic Party.

 

While the Republican Party also believes there should be safety nets for Americans during hard times, they maintain the job of helping them should be more effectively delegated to the private sector, instead of the government. Therefore, they prefer giving support and grants to faith-based and other private charitable organizations to carry out the task of helping the less fortunate. This is also why in an effort to trim down deficit without having to raise taxes for the rich, allocation for social services-- including unemplyoment benefits, health care, etc. are first to go.

 

Republicans also believe in American exceptionalism, which means "the United States has a specific world mission, to spread liberty and democracy". For them, this means Americans should “lead from the front and not from behind,” as we have heard in the convention speeches. This principle translates to a stronger military, and the need to allocate more budget to support it.

 

These are just some of the major differences between the two parties. This week, it will be Democrats’ turn to be in the forefront of media coverages, as President Barack Obama and VP Joe Biden accept their party’s nomination for their re-election. Next week, we will talk about the Democrats’ principles in this column.

Related article: The US Presidential Race Is On: Are you leaning Democrat?

 (My Asian Journal Column Article, September 5, 6, 7, 2012) 

Robredo’s Legacy: Leadership by Example

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

“I’ve long held the belief that as a leader, I can’t ask of you something that I can’t do myself, and I can’t impose on you values that I don’t live out.”

- Sec. Jesse Robredo

 

Many of us knew the late Secretary Jesse Robredo from a distance. Perhaps some of us only heard about his exemplary performance when he was still mayor of Naga City when Pres. Noynoy Aquino invited him to serve in the national level as Department of Interior and Local Government secretary. 

 

Indeed, his untimely death made us know more about the man, and about our people - desperately yearning for a true leader.

 

Secretary Robredo died unexpectedly when the Piper Seneca plane carrying him, two pilots and his aide, crashed into the sea off Masbate, on his way back home to Naga City. Only his aide survived.

 

For three days, Filipinos around the world joined kababayans back home in prayer, hoping the good Lord will save Sec. Robredo and his companions, and bring them back to Naga alive. 

 

Yes, God brought him back home. “You are home now, where you truly belong. Rest now, we will love you forever.” His widow Atty. Leni Robredo said during the requiem mass in Naga City’s Basilica Minore de Nuestra Señora de Peñafrancia.

 

Robredo's family brought out his ashes from the Funeraria Imperial to the Eternal Gardens Memorial Park. They declined a burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani in Manila, saying it would have been the wish of Sec. Robredo to be among his people in Naga. 

 

But for Bicolanos and Nagaenos, he was already a hero. And as we knew more about the man, we kababayans from all over the world mourned for the passing of the kind of leader we have long been praying for.

 

In my engagement with kababayans via social media, many wonder why the good deeds and accomplishments of Robredo were not talked about much before his death. 

 

This is a testament to Robredo’s leadership: service to the people without expecting anything in return -- not fame, not fortune, not even recognition. Reports say Robredo did not have PR guys to flaunt his accomplishments, name or face. He is the antithesis of the EPAL culture that has been the norm of many TRAPO politicos in the Philippines.

 

The depth and breadth of Robredo’s character and good deeds while he was alive were enough to compel people that knew him through the years to speak up and give a shout out to honor the man. 

 

While other politicos cling to power to protect their own personal vested interests, Robredo’s driving force was just his pure and genuine desire to help and serve the people. 

 

In his homily during the requiem mass, Fr. Kulandairaj Ambrose said, "I met Jesse 20 years ago. Two things impressed me about Mayor Jesse. He was a man of the family and a man of the poor.

 

Fr. Ambrose recalled how Sec. Robredo made everyone feel wanted, treated everyone with respect - regardless of whether that human being was a VIP (Very Important Person) or a VOP (Very Ordinary Person) . 

 

He echoed what everybody has been saying about Robredo - that he always found time for everyone, made everyone feel he cared. He described him as a man who was “poor in spirit” as perhaps that Beatitudes would describe one, "because he desired nothing for himself.”

 

“Sec. Jesse not only share the name of our Lord Jesus,  but in his own way strived to be like him.,” said Fr. Ambrose -- truly setting Robredo apart from many politicos who claim to be Christian crusaders but who are in fact self-righteous self-serving TRAPOS who will say and do anything from the devil’s playbook for political expediency and survival.

 

From the eulogy of his wife, Atty. Leni Robredo, we found out that the public persona of Robredo was consistent with who he was at home. The values that he espoused were the values he lived.

 

“We will remember him most as an exceptional husband and father,” said Leni. “He died with nothing left unsaid. He constantly showered us with I love yous.”

 

Leni Robredo said, “My husband was always conscious not to enjoy the perks of his office, not to live beyond our means.”

 

Sharing how much of a simple down-to-earth man Robredo was, Leni said “He was never attached to material things. He received a number of signature gifts, he said ‘magagalit na nito sa akin ang Diyos.’”  

 

Leni added, “He made sure our children will not have a sense of entitlement." And he sure lived that way to the very end.

 

Robredo’s friend and Former Isabela Gov. Grace Padaca was spot on in her eulogy: "Robredo gave good governance a face, embodied honest and effective leadership." she said.  “He was in power for 18 years but he maintained his simplicity. Hindi siya nilamon ng sistema; siya ang umayos sa sistema." 

 

Many kababayans felt and expressed such a profound sense of loss, and wondered why God would allow a good man like Robredo to die so young, while many politicos who abuse their power live longer. 

 

Perhaps, God -- in His infinite wisdom -- has a reason for Robredo’s death. 

 

Perhaps, this painful loss serves as our wake-up call to be more discerning in the kind of leaders we elect for public office as it is possible-- there are still good men like Robredo who deserve our vote and public trust.

 

Perhaps Robredo's death will awaken in us the need to demand full transparency and accountability from our public officials -- from the barangay tanod to the President. Robredo has shown us that true, honest-to-goodness public service is possible and essential.  

 

Indeed good governance is not one way. We, the people, have to do our part.

 

Leni Robredo said: "In death he gave my children that gift, a good name. The best way to honor him is to guard that name and make him proud." The same message resonates with Filipinos as well.

 

In his eulogy, President Noynoy Aquino said: “In times of difficulties, the call to each one of us is: rouse the hero inside us and respond to the call of duty. Lowly or powerful, famous or not, you can contribute and do everything that you can for the sake of the country and your fellow men,’’ he said.

 

“Every good example will give birth to many heroes. One will become many, so that we’ll achieve our dreams. In our blood runs the spirit of heroism. That’s why the people we look up to are called heroes: they kept the fervor burning that united our people and served as a bridge to achieving our goal," PNoy added. 

 

Maraming salamat, Secretary Jesse Robredo. May the life you lived be the shining beacon of the nation toward “Daang Matuwid.” Rest in peace.

 

Photo credit: Definitely Filipino

(My Asian Journal Column article)

Possible Relief from Deportation for Undocumented Immigrants in California

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

The "safe harbor" program will allow qualified undocumented immigrants in California to live and work in the state but will not be a pathway to amnesty, citizenship, voting rights, a driver’s license, or any other state benefits.  They will pay the state about $325 million in taxes. This will help California with its budget problem "while decriminalizing the labor of hard working immigrants. -- SB 901 author Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes

If you are a TnT who came to California before 2008, with no felony convictions, are not a member of a terrorist organization,  willing to undergo a background check, know or are learning English, and are willing to pay a fee -- then you may be spared from deportation if SB 901 is enacted into law.

 

Senate Bill 901 provisions previously set guidelines for a program that pays owners of high polluting vehicles to retire them. However, as The Sacramento Bee reported, it was gutted and amended this week, just days before the California Legislature adjourns -- to propose the “safe harbor” program that will benefit about two million undocumented immigrants, including many Filipinos,  in the state of California.

 

The bill was introduced by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento); co-authors include Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes (D-Sylmar) who wrote the amendment. 

 

The clock is ticking -- this immigrant “safe harbor” measure needs approved by both houses before the Legislature adjourns on Aug. 31. After which,  Gov. Jerry Brown would decide if he would  fate veto or sign this bill into law.

 

But as immigration is within the jurisdiction of the federal government, this program will only go forward if the Obama administration agrees not to spend time or resources in apprehending, detaining or deporting its participants. This will allow qualified undocumented immigrants in California to openly live and work in the state, as long as they abide by certain conditions -- including the payment of state income taxes.

 

Fuentes estimated that some two million undocumented immigrants would pay the state about $325 million in taxes. This, he sad, will help the state with its budget problem "while decriminalizing the labor of hard working immigrants."

 

"This shows the State is compassionate...While Washington has failed to address the issue of immigration for nearly a quarter century, this is another opportunity for California to lead the way on an important policy issue," Fuentes’ spokesperson Ben Golombek said.

 

Golombek, however, clarified that the safe harbor program would not be a pathway to amnesty, citizenship, voting rights, a driver’s license, or any other state benefits. 

 

According to The Sacramento Bee, Fuentes and other supporters launched a petition drive last December to place the safe harbor program before voters, but they failed to obtain the 504,760 voter signatures needed to qualify for this year's November ballot.

 

Explaining why the measure was introduced so late this year, Golombek said that “it was only a few weeks ago that Fuentes received the final word the safe harbor program could be created through legislation, without a statewide vote, which prompted the gut-and-amend of SB 901 so late in the legislative year.”

 

Oppositions to the bill are mounting among those who abide by the strict implementation of immigration laws.

 

The Sacramento Bee reported that founder of nonprofit California Coalition for Immigration Reform, Barbara Coe, said the bill is offensive, arguing that providing worker rights to undocumented immigrants is a "slap in the face" to native-born Americans and to legal immigrants.

 

"Federal immigration law mandates immediate deportation of illegal aliens -- end of subject," Coe said. "Enforce the law.”

 

California is the state where the biggest population of Filipinos in America live. Presumably, it is where most of our TnT kababayans have also been living and working for so many years.

 

What do you think? Should this bill-- that will make  California a "safe harbor" for  undocumented immigrants -- be enacted into law?

 

(My Asian Journal Column Article for August 25, 2012. Photo Credit: California)

Fr. JOAQUIN BERNAS on the Amendments to the RH Bill

 

Respected constitutionalist, educator  and Jesuit priest FR. JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J. wrote a very informative column on the Philippine Daily Inquirer that discusses the misconceptions about the RH bill, and the amendments that the authors of the bill have offered to address the concerns of some people.

 

 

Amending House Bill 4244.

Those seriously studying the RH bill should take a look at the amendments already offered by the authors of the bill themselves. They are contained in Rep. Edcel Lagman’s letter to Rep. Rogelio J. Espina, chair of the Committee on Population and Family Relations. However, to understand the proposed amendments, one must read and study HB 4244 and not just rely on criticisms by some who may never have read it, much less studied it.

 

Yes, there are a good number of misconceptions about the bill, and there can be dishonest critics who set up straw men they can merrily attack.  One may ask, for instance, how many among the Church authorities have read and studied HB 4244? This is an important question because I see the amendments as efforts to adjust to the transition from an established Catholic Church whose word was law to today’s demands of freedom of religion.

 

I propose the pulling together of the various amendments already accepted by the authors of the bill.

 

Sec. 13. Role of barangay health workers. Instead of saying that they should “give priority to family planning work,” simply say they should “help implement this Act.” This should obviate the complaints that family planning is being given undue emphasis.

 

Sec. 15. Funding Mobile Health Services. Charge the funding to the national government, not to the lawmakers’ Priority Development Fund (PDAF) while at the same time allowing individual lawmakers to use their PDAF.

 

Sec. 16. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Sex Education. Give parents the option not to allow their children to attend mandatory sex education; at the same time give assistance to parents who want help in this matter. This is in conformity with the primary right of parents.

 

Sec. 20. Ideal Family Size. Delete the entire provision. This will preclude further misinformation about the meaning of this provision.

 

Sec. 21. Employers’ Responsibility. Delete this because it is simply a restatement of Article 134 of the Labor Code.  Deleting it will preclude further debate.

 

Sec. 28(e) Prohibited Acts. Delete the provision which penalizes “any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent and provisions of this Act.” There already are penal limits to the freedom of expression.

 

In addition to the amendments proposed by the authors of the consolidated bill, there are others which are worth considering. Let me mention a few:

 

On Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education

 

1. Private schools can opt to provide an alternative sexuality education curriculum based on the school’s religious beliefs or values. The government will monitor if there is a curriculum being implemented, whether the standard one or the alternative one.

 

2. If a public school cannot provide enough adequately trained teachers or there are public school teachers who cannot teach the government’s curriculum because of religion-based objections, the proper government agency would send trained instructors to teach the sexuality education classes.

 

3. An additional topic for the curriculum is the role of religious freedom and conscience in choosing the means of planning families.

 

On Prohibited Acts

 

Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall require a person to undergo sterilization as a condition for providing indigent patients with basic health care, emergency care or health care shall be penalized.

 

I realize that there are other urgent matters which Congress must consider. But the effort of some to block the period of amendments merely as a tactic for preventing the bill’s approval does a disservice to the nation.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/35106/a-new-chief-justice-an-amended-hb-4244

Sotto’s Crusade and the RH Bill: What Really Violates Filipinos' Freedom of Choice?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

Doesn't “freedom of choice” require that everybody -- rich or poor, Catholic or not, in urban and rural areas -- be given all the education and tools they need, as they make informed decisions in their own reproductive health issues and responsible parenthood -- guided by their own moral or spiritual compass?

Sen. Vicente Sotto III has made it his mission to block the passage of the controversial House Bill No. 4244 --  the Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act, more popularly known as the RH Bill. His reasons are personal.

 

He blames the side effects of contraceptive pills for the death of his son who died five months after he was born in 1975, an assertion questioned by many pro-RH groups, including former Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral and Iloilo Rep. Janette Garin -- who challenged Sotto to make public his son's death certificate to prove that contraceptives actually caused his son's death.

 

"Magiging misyon ko ito pala para ipaglaban ko ang karapatan na mabuhay ang maraming inosenteng bata na kikitilin ang buhay ng bill na ito," Sotto said in his tearful "turno on en contra" speech against the RH Bill in the Senate.

 

The bill has been stalled in Congress for 14 years due to staunch opposition  from the Catholic Church and pro-life advocates. The House of Representatives has finally voted to end debates and move the bill forward for second reading approval in the House. Sotto refuses to surrender.

 

Taking his personal battle further, Sotto appeared for an interview on ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC), where he continued to raise his arguments against the passage of the bill.

 

Sotto said he agrees with the RH Bill provisions on family and maternal health."What I don't agree with is using people's [tax] money for contraceptives" he told Karen Davila on the program “Headstart.”

 

He also said he opposes the declaration of contraceptives and condoms as essential medicines, as stipulated in the RH Bill, arguing that they do not cure anything. He warns condoms aren't foolproof against the Human Immuno Virus (HIV), and that artificial contraceptives have a 8-10% failure rate. 

 

Senator Sotto also challenged the truth behind RH advocates’  declaration that in the Philippines, 11-15 mothers die every day because of pregnancy and childbirth. “We need to see actual, empirical data on maternal health,” Sotto asserted. He accused Department of Health officials of using these arguments to make up for their inadequacy and failure to do their job.

 

The issue of whether the Philippines really needs population control was also raised by the senator. Sotto said population growth is also needed for economic development. He cited the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) statement that says “ideal growth population rate is 2.1% per year.” Sotto said the Philippines is now at only 1.9%, implying there is no need to curtail population growth with the use of contraceptives, despite the Philippines' dense population.

 

But what really perplexed me was this point that Senator Sotto articulated in the interview --  that the RH Bill “will take away freedom of choice from couples”-- a concern echoed by many kababayans who fear that the passage of the RH Bill will mandate all Filipinos to use artificial contraceptives against their will and conscience. 

 

The fact is, when the RH Bill is enacted into law, the Department of Health will then be directed to make “medically safe, legal, accessible, affordable and effective reproductive health care services nationwide.” It will also require “age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education” -- from the fifth grade through high school. 

 

The RH Bill is not about pushing everybody to use artificial contraceptives. It is about educating the Filipinos about their reproductive health, especially  as it relates to responsible parenthood. It is about helping  women who need preventive care and treatment-- gain access to dependable health care professionals.

 

It is  about informing people about all their options -- if and when they decide for themselves that it is important for them to plan the size of their family and when to have children -- depending on their physical, emotional, financial, and spiritual readiness to assume the great responsibility of parenthood.

 

It is about making people know about the pros and cons of each option, and what will work best for every individual given her medical and health issues. It includes information about the use of natural family planning methods, like abstinence and calendar method, as options. No coercing people to take the pills or use the condom. No mandating couples on the number of children to have. No abortion as a tool for family planning.

 

While contraceptives have already been available for purchase in the Philippines, only those who can afford them have access. The blockage of the passage of the bill, will therefore deny the “freedom of choice” for people who cannot afford to pay for, or have no access to contraceptives and reproductive health care -- whether for medical or birth control purposes. Is “freedom of choice” just a luxury meant only for those who can afford it?

 

On a spiritual and religious level, it is important to point out that the RH Bill does NOT force people to use artificial contraceptives. There is nothing in the bill that requires Catholics to go against the Catholics  Church's position against the use of any birth control pills, morning-after pill, condoms,  IUD, sterilization, withdrawal method, etc. Each Catholic CAN still choose abstinence or the calendar method, or no birth control method at all -- depending on the dictates of his/her conscience. 

 

Moreover, as Senator Pia Cayetano argued, not all Filipinos are Catholic. Doesn't making a public policy based on Catholic dogma alone, deny the rights and welfare of other Filipinos of different faith.

 

Doesn't “freedom of choice” also require that everybody -- rich or poor, Catholic or not, in urban and rural areas --be given all the tools they they need to make an informed decision in their own reproductive health issues and responsible parenthood, guided by their own moral or spiritual compass? This is what the RH Bill hopes to achieve.

 

It is  ironic that the blogger that Senator Sotto was reported to have plagiarized in his Senate speech, reacted and stated her position, in favor of freedom of choice for Filipino women,  when it came to matters of reproductive health.

 

Sarah Pope wrote:

“Women of the Philippines: I am terribly sorry my blog was used and twisted against you.  You deserve the choice to use The Pill if you want or need to based on your personal circumstances. While I want you to know that this choice has health consequences as does the decision to use any pharmaceutical drug, I in no way, would ever condone taking this choice away from you...”

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S. J. on the misconceptions about the RH Bill 

 

Confer the Philippine National Artist Award to DOLPHY: Will You Sign The Petition?

 

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

Namayapa man si Dolphy, ang paggawad sa kanya ng karangalang ito ay pagpupugay sa kanyang pangalan...o legacy...o pamana sa sining at kultura ng bansang kanyang minahal, pinaglingkuran, at pinasaya sa loob ng 65 taon bilang isang tunay na artist sa stage, radyo, TV at pelikula.

Will you sign the petition (http://www.change.org/dolphy ) to honor his name and legacy in the history of Philippine arts and culture so the generations to come will know and appreciate the King of Comedy who brought so much joy and laughter to us in the midst of our struggles as a nation?

Dolphy was laid to rest on Sunday, July 15, but the clamor of a nation in mourning to give the King of Comedy the much-deserved Philippine National Artist Award lives on --  and the uproar only grows louder and stronger after his death.

 

Yes, this recognition could be given posthumously. The first award was posthumously conferred to Filipino painter Fernando Amorsolo. 

 

Dolphy had definitively satisfied all qualifications for this honor: He made significant contributions to the cultural heritage of the country; his highest level of artistic accomplishments on stage, radio, television and film helped promote creative expression as significant to the development of a national cultural identity; and he dedicated 65 years of his life as an artist, which helped forge new paths and directions for future generations of Filipino artists.

 

The King of Comedy also reaped many awards as an actor in the films “Omeng Satanasia” and Lino Brocka’s “Ang Tatay Kong Nanay.” He was also given the “Best Performer” award in Brussels International Filmfest for his portrayal of the role of Markova, a Filipino homosexual man, forced into prostitution during the war.

 

It has been so many years since Dolphy was nominated for the highest national recognition given to Filipino individuals who have made significant contributions to the development of Philippine arts. But the award, given only every three years, had been elusive to the King of Comedy in his lifetime.

 

Some say politics had something to do with it. In an interview on ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC), Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) chairperson Grace Poe-Llamanzares hinted that Dolphy's endorsement of her father Fernando Poe Jr. during the 2004 presidential elections did cost the the country's "King of Comedy" the National Artist Award.

 

ABS-CBN news quoted Llmanzares as saying: "He [Dolphy] suffered a lot for the [FPJ] endorsement because the past [Arroyo] administration, they were a bit vengeful. There were some exchange of words to the point of [Dolphy] saying, 'I'm sorry, Madam, if I hurt your feelings.”

 

Others lament how personal prejudices of a few cost the King of Comedy this much deserved title, especially after National Artist Awardee for Theater Cecile Guidote- Alvarez revealed that Dolphy's portrayals of gay men throughout his film career cost him the national artist award. 

 

In an interview on ABS-CBN Radio DZMM, Guidote-Alvarez said inclusion in the final list of nominees for national artist was "passionately" opposed in the deliberation committee, which is tasked to recommend notable personalities to be awarded the title. The loudest voice came from then Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) president Nicanor Tiongson.

 

"Basically, siya ang pinakamatindi. Sa botohan na-shock nga kami, hindi nakapasa si Dolphy. Sa recollection ko, ang sinasabing protesta was basically hindi karapat-dapat ang body of work [ni Dolphy] na nagpe-presenta not in a good light about the gay [community], the life [of gay men]," Guidote-Alvarez said, as quoted by ABS-CBN News. 

 

Consequently, Dolphy was removed from the shortlist the NCCA and the CCP would jointly recommend to former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

 

But many kababayans from different parts of the world could not and would not accept these reasons why Dolphy should not get the recognition, even after his death. 

 

The clamor has increasingly intensified after Guidote Alvarez pointed out: "As of 1997, meron pong joint NCCA-CCP board which said the president has the authority and the prerogative to deny anything that was recommended by the NCCA-CCP, has the right to name a category, has a right to elect or add anybody in their judgment through the validation of the Honors Committee, who should be given an award, a state award.”

 

In 2010, President Noynoy Aquino conferred the Grand Collar of the Order of the Golden Heart to Dolphy (the highest award given to a private citizen by the President of the Philippines) for his contributions to the entertainment industry and for his many years of charitable and philanthropic works. 

 

Many Filipinos believe PNoy could have done better by using his executive power for Dolphy to be seriously considered for the highest recognition of being named as Philippine National Artist.

 

The biggest online Filipino community on Facebook called  “Definitely Filipino” initiated a petition addressed to President Benigno Aquino III, NCCA & CCP. (http://www.change.org/dolphy )

 

Founder of Definitely Filipino, Ben Totanes, said: “The award wasn’t given to him when he was alive. But now that he is gone, they should give it him. It’s still an honor.”

 

Responding to opposition founded on the belief that Dolphy’s portrayal was demeaning to gay people, and on a more conservative view that “homosexuality is a sin, and therefore playing gay roles is a sin,” Totanes said that gay roles were not demeaning to the gay community. He argued that the King of Comedy’s portrayal of gay roles even helped raise awareness, understanding, respect and even acceptance of the gays in the community.

 

The “Definitely Filipino” petition states:

 

“This petition aims to show the support of the Filipino people in the process and eventual conferment of the National Artist 2012 Award to Dolphy for his outstanding contribution to the arts and culture of the Philippines . It is the voice of the Filipino asking: 

 

1. That Dolphy be included in the short-list of nominees/awardees submitted by the NCCA and CCP to the Office of the President;

 

      2. That President Benigno Aquino III will heed to the call of his "boss"        - the Filipino People - in declaring Dolphy as National Artist in 2012. 

 

This petition supports the resolutions filed by the City of Manila and that in the Senate by Senate President Pro-Tempore Jinggoy Ejercito-Estrada, asking the President to declare him as National Artist in this year's competition, which is only being held every 3 years.

 

This petition serves as a documentation of the public's support for Dolphy in this time of mourning and recognition of his contribution in Philippine cinema and in the lives of countless Filipinos.”

 

Per guidelines outlined by the National  Commission for Culture and the Arts, “A posthumous conferral consisting of the medallion and citation shall be given to the family or legal heir/s of the honoree. The cash award of P75,000 in cheque shall be given to the honoree’s legal heir/s or a representative designated by the family immediately after the ceremony or at another time and place as requested by the family.”

 

Will you honor the King of Comedy by signing this petition? 

Go to http://www.change.org/dolphy

 

Paalam, Dolphy...Salamat sa Mga Halakhak!

 

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

The man who brought joy and laughter to generations of Filipinos is gone.

 

After two years of his most intense battle with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dolphy joined our Creator last Tuesday, July 10, at 8:34 in the evening at the Makati Medical Center, due to multiple organ failure, secondary to complications brought about by severe pneumonia, COPD, and renal failure. 

 

The whole nation mourns-- it is as if one member of the family died. Yes, that is what Dolphy is to us. 

 

For six decades, Dolphy has been part of almost every Filipino family’s history, making us laugh and cry, on stage, radio, television, and film. 

 

The ‘King of Comedy” started entertaining the Filipino people at the age of 17 as a stage performer on Avenue and Lyric Theaters during the Japanese occupation. 

 

He was on radio starting in the 1940s when it  was the major source of entertainment for Filipinos. He starred on Conde Ubalde’s radio shows, most notable was the program “Wag Naman” which topbilled Pancho Magalona, Tessie Quintana, and Baby Jane. It was also during these golden years of radio when his comedy duo with Panchito started.

 

Dolphy was on television since it started in the 1950s, appearing for the first time on ABS-CBN’s Buhay Artista. For decades, Dolphy made us laugh through his other programs as well, including “John and Marsha” and “Home Along da Riles”.

 

Dolphy’s first movie was when he was 19 years old  with Fernando Poe Sr. He started doing movies for Sampaguita Pictures in 1952, and did movies with other movie outfits while being on television. He started producing his own films via RVQ Productions in 1965.

 

His most memorable early films as a comedian were in the 50s like “Sulyap Mo Tita”, “Jack and Jill”, “Silveria” and “Tanzan”-- the re-runs of which I am sure you truly enjoyed watching on  television in the afternoon siesta time,  like I did as a child growing up in the 60s and 70s.

 

  The King of Comedy also reaped many awards as an actor in the films “Omeng Satanasia” and Lino Brocka’s “Ang Tatay Kong Nanay”. He was also given the “Best Performer” award in Brussels International Filmfest for his portrayal of the role of Markova, a Filipino homosexual man forced into prostitution during the war.

 

On July 25, 2008, Dolphy celebrated his 80th birthday, with the launching of a biographical book--  Dolphy,” Hindi Ko Ito Narating Mag-isa” (Dolphy, I Didn't Get Here All By Myself)-- I was honored to be given a copy of this book signed by Dolphy himself, when I interviewed him on Balitang America.

 

In this book, Dolphy shared about his humble beginnings. He was Rodolfo Vera Cruz in real life, born in Tondo, Manila in 1928. He was second of ten children, and his father was a ship mechanic.

 

As we reported on Balitang America, Dolphy’s biography revealed that his exposure to movies started while, as a young man working inside the theater selling peanuts, he watched so many many movies for free. He was only thirteen when World War II started. He helped his family by doing odd jobs including shining shoes and working as a stevedore at the pier. And then the stage later beckoned, and the rest was history.

 

It was these early struggles in life that has made him the compassionate, giving, and down to earth person he had always been known and admired for.

 

In 2010, President Noynoy Aquino conferred the Grand Collar of the Order of the Golden Heart to Dolphy - the highest award given to a private citizen by the President of the Philippines - for his contributions to the entertainment industry and for his many years of charitable and philanthropic works.

 

But many kababayans believed he deserved to be given the Philippine National Artist Award. Even years before his passing, his supporters have been clamoring for this, as they believe Dolphy more than met all the qualifications and requirements for this distinguished honor.

 

It is the highest national recognition given to Filipino individuals who have made significant contributions to the development of Philippine arts. This award is conferred no more frequently than every three years, honoring:

 

Filipino artists who have made significant contributions to the cultural heritage of the country;

 

Filipino artistic accomplishment at its highest level and to promote creative expression as significant to the development of a national cultural identity;

 

Filipino artists who have dedicated their lives to their works to forge new paths and directions for future generations of Filipino artists.

 

This recognition has been raised to the level of a Cultural Order, ranking fourth in precedence among the orders and decorations that comprise the Honors of the Philippines, and considered equal in rank to the “Order of National Scientists” and the “Gawad sa Manlilikha ng Bayan”.

 

As we reported on Balitang America-- despite his death, the Philippine House of Representatives will still tackle a resolution seeking to declare Dolphy a National Artist.

In a radio interview, Rep. Salvador Escudero III said that lawmakers may also recommend a posthumous award for Dolphy.

 

Dolphy gave much needed respite in times of trials and desperations of our kababayans for many generations. Through his comedy, Dolphy also taught us how to  laugh at ourselves, imperfections and all. With  his gift of laughter, Dolphy lifted up our spirits and reminded us that no matter how hard our circumstances might had been, not all was lost.

 

Paalam, Dolphy...Maraming salamat sa mga halakhak.... 

 

Photo Credit: Arlu  www.helloballoon.com