Friday, March 8, 2013

Should we give visas to immigrants who create startups?


Should we give visas to immigrants who create startups?

Obama wants judges to decide whether immigrants convicted of minor crimes should be deported



Obama wants judges to decide whether immigrants convicted of minor crimes should be deported

Buried in the White House’s draft immigration bill is a new proposal that would give judges greater discretion to decide whether immigrants convicted of minor criminal offenses should be allowed to remain in the United States.
Marchers carry signs in support of immigrant rights as thousands of protesters march up Broadway during a May Day immigration rally in Los Angeles, California. (Reuters)
Marchers carry signs in support of immigrant rights as thousands of protesters march up Broadway during a May Day immigration rally in Los Angeles, California. (Reuters)
Under current law, non-citizen immigrants convicted of what’s known as an “aggravated felony” face automatic penalties that make it far harder for them to be spared from deportation. While the term suggests a crime of a serious and violent nature, the definition of an “aggravated felony” has been expanded over the years, to the point where it includes crimes that are neither “aggravated” nor “felonies.” Obama’s draft immigration bill would narrow the definition of an aggravated felony by giving immigration judges greater discretion to grant leniency to individual immigrants convicted of minor offenses.
Originally, only a small handful of serious crimes were classified as “aggravated felonies” in immigration law, but the definition was expanded in 1996 to encompass a host of other more minor offenses. “As initially enacted in 1988, the term ‘aggravated felony’ referred only to murder, federal drug trafficking, and illicit trafficking of certain firearms and destructive devices,” explains a brief from the Immigration Policy Center, an immigration advocacy group. “Today, the definition of ‘aggravated felony’ covers more than thirty types of offenses, including simple battery, theft, filing a false tax return, and failing to appear in court.”
“Under immigration law, ‘aggravated felony’ can be as simple as a bar fight. The reason is that it’s not measured in terms of the severity of the crime — it’s measured in terms of technical sentence,” says David Leopold, the general counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
“Even offenses that sound serious, such as ‘sexual abuse of a minor,’ can encompass conduct that some states classify as misdemeanors or do not criminalize at all, such as consensual intercourse between a 17-year-old and a 16-year-old,” explains the Immigration Policy Council.


Many crimes are classified as “aggravated felonies” if they carry a sentence of one year—regardless of whether that sentence is actually imposed or carried out in full. Immigrants convicted of such crimes are automatically required to be detained by federal immigration authorities after they’re released from criminal custody and can then be summarily deported without a hearing before a judge. Aggravated felons are also ineligible for asylum or reprieve from deportation by a change due to family hardship, and they’re prohibited from ever returning to the United States without special permission from the government. (Permanent residents are granted a hearing, but the judge still has limited authority to prevent deportation.)
Obama’s draft bill would it possible for more immigrants convicted of minor criminal offenses to remain in the United States by giving judges far greater discretion to decide whether they should be deported. The proposal would redefine an aggravated felony to encompass crimes that carry at least a five-year penalty. It also would require fraud offenses to result in at least $100,000 in losses for victims rather than the current $10,000 to be classified as aggravated felonies.
That doesn’t mean that all immigrants convicted of more minor crimes would be granted a reprieve from deportation: Rather, it would give immigration judges greater leeway to decide whether they should be deported or get a second chance. (Under Obama’s draft bill, undocumented immigrants would be disqualified from receiving legal status if they serve more than a year in prison for a crime they’ve committed.)
The proposed changes have heartened immigration advocates, who believe that the draft bill reveals the White House’s concern for due process and fairness. “The reason that’s so important is because immigration judges have no jurisdiction over the kind of release in terms of an aggravated felony,” says Leopold. “If somebody’s committed a crime, let an immigration judge make the decision.”
But the proposed changes are likely to be contentious: The Senate’s bipartisan immigration group has yet to support such reforms, which weren’t detailed in Obama’s initial framework for reform. And immigration skeptics believe that loosening such standards would leadpotentially dangerous, destructive criminals to remain in the United  States.

Undocumented immigrants would have 13-year wait for citizenship under Obama plan






Undocumented immigrants would have 13-year wait for citizenship under Obama plan



A draft of the White House immigration bill was leaked over the weekend, detailing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants that would take about 13 years after the passage of the bill to complete, policy experts say.
(Marvin Joseph-Washington Post)
(Marvin Joseph-Washington Post)
The Miami Herald has posted the full text of the draft, which explains how undocumented immigrants would have to go to the “back of the line” to ensure they don’t get citizenship before prospective immigrants who went through legal channels. (You also can read the sections detailing employer enforcement and border security.)
The process is broken down into three stages:

First, undocumented immigrants must apply for “Lawful Prospective Immigrant Status,” which would allow them to work and travel outside the United States with some restrictions, but which would bar them from receiving any government benefits. Prospective immigrants would have to pay back taxes and prove they’re pursuing a Education Department-approved course of study to learn English and an “understanding of the history and Government  of the United States,” according to the draft. They’d also have to apply to renew their provisional legal status every four years.
Second, those prospective immigrants must either wait eight years from when the comprehensive bill is passed or until the backlog of legal immigrants waiting for visas is cleared before being able to get a green card,”whichever comes earlier,” explains Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute’s office at NYU School of Law. 

Once they get a green card — which grants “legal permanent residence” — immigrants typically have to wait at least five more years to become naturalized citizens.
So, in total, qualified undocumented immigrants would likely have to wait at least 13 years  to get full citizenship. Some pro-immigration advocates aren’t happy about that wait. “It takes longer than we think is necessary,” says Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of America’s Voice. The PICO National Network, a coalition of faith-based community organizers, says the proposal could “delay citizenship another generation” and believes that the wait will be even longer than it looks on paper.
“In practice this could mean people waiting another 15 to 20 years to be fully integrated into society as citizens,” Gordon Whitman, PICO’s policy director, said in a statement.
But immigration advocates are generally supportive of the overall structure of the process, which in some ways is simpler than the citizenship process proposed in 2007. Six years ago, the comprehensive bill required undocumented immigrants with provisional legal status to “touch back” and receive their visas from their countries of origin, then return to the United States legally. There isn’t such a requirement in the White House plan, which also has lower fees and penalties for attaining legal status, explains Tramonte.  ”We like the clear, direct path.”
Overall, the draft bill’s path to legalization is essentially in line with the proposal by the Senate’s bipartisan Gang of Eight, with one big exception. The Senate plan makes legalization contingent on “securing the border” according to benchmarks that have yet to be laid out in detail. President Obama has refused such requirements.
That conflict over border security has been a sore spot for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who blasted the White House draft bill over the weekend as “half baked.” But policy experts and advocates believe that Obama and the Senate gang are far closer than the rhetoric suggests. “I don’t think fundamentally there is that much difference among these proposals,” says Chishti.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Things to do


  • Learn to speak Italian, if not Mandarin, at least a little.
  • Fall in love with a younger man,or an older woman, at least a little — if only in courtly fashion.
  • Learn to sing, at least a little, and do it in front of someone.
  • Write a novel. Write a play. Write letters to all your grandchildren, even those not yet born.
  • Become a mentor, but to someone your own age.
  • Slowly, but a little more each day, get in better shape than you were at 30. It's entirely possible.
  • Tell the truth, every day. If nothing else, it will catch people off guard.
  • Adopt an older child. If you have an empty nest, and don't feel finished, remember that if a child knows the love of one relatively sane adult before the age of 12, nothing else matters. If a child doesn't, nothing else matters.
  • Give away something you love and that squeezes you to part with — even if it is your time.
  • Commit to memory this phrase: "I'd love to, but I can't." Do not elaborate.
  • Purge. Sell or give away the bread machine and Crock-Pot you've used once. Donate your unopened makeup, '80s outfits, and all your thick, embroidered Swiss sweaters (unless you live in Switzerland or even a chalet). Do it before your children or before your grandchildren know the definition of the word "hoarder."
  • Dance outside, at night in a country where a Romance language is spoken.
    • Skinny dip, outside, at night, in any place where romance is spoken.
    • Scuba-dive, if it scares you. Zip-line, if it scares you. Do ropes, if it scares you. Try to master something that won't kill you, but that scares you.
    • Photo albums cost about $9. Take those photos out of the drawer and put them in chronological order. Start with your wedding. You will feel cleansed, virtuous. You may feel thinner.
    • Have the courage to stick to what you believe to be true. Without losing your temper or your dignity, stand firm. It's not "unpleasantness." You've lived long enough to pick a side.
    • Take care of your feet. No one wants rough, moldy oldies. Attractive, springy feet change your mood, and your life. Wear the best shoes you can afford. Get pedicures — as a couple (yes, guys do!).
    • Honor sleep. It really does make you better looking.
    • Earn enough to retire, then don't.

A Cheat Sheet for Airline Fees


A Cheat Sheet for Airline Fees

2:39 p.m. Updated / To correct the name of the airline charging $10 for blankets and pillows to Virgin America (instead of Virgin Atlantic).

The airlines seem to have come up with a fee for almost everything these days. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a cheat sheet, listing the various fees charged by the major airlines, all in one place?
Airfarewatchdog is offering just that on its Web site. Its new “comprehensive airline fees guide” lists 14 major fees charged by 14 big domestic airlines. Most of them you’ve seen before: booking fees, change fees, checked bag fees. They’re all depressingly familiar.
Then, there are the fees for blankets and pillows ($7 on Air Canada and US Airways; $10 on Virgin America).
And remind me never to bring my dog with me if I ever fly Hawaiian Airlines. The carrier charges a steep $175 to have pets fly with you in the cabin, if you’re traveling from the mainland.
The chart also lets you know just what size bag each airline considers oversized, and how much that will cost you.
If nothing else, the chart, available in PDF format, may help you plan the actual cost of trip.

Man’s Best Friend: Dogs May Understand Human Perspective Better than Previously Thought


Man’s Best Friend: Dogs May Understand Human Perspective Better than Previously Thought


http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/18/mans-best-friend-dogs-may-understand-human-perspective-better-than-previously-thought/#ixzz2LSmtjjyu

If you’re seeking a sympathetic friend, you may need to look no further than your dog. A recent study revealed that dogs are far more capable of understanding situations from a human’s point of view than previously believed.
The study, which was published in the journal Animal Cognition, was intended to see if dogs demonstrated a “flexible understanding” of a human’s point of view. Researchers conducted a test on84 dogs to assess the level at which they understood what a human was or was not experiencing using a very simple system: They turned out the lights.
The pets and their owners were put in a room with a bowl of dog treats, which the dog was made to understand he or she was not allowed to touch. The researchers hypothesized that if the dogs went for the forbidden snacks when the lights went down, they understood that their owners could no longer see — thus showing that the dogs understood that their human companion’s perspective had changed and could adapt their own behavior in response. If the dogs didn’t change their behavior — and didn’t go for the verboten snack — then the researchers hypothesized that dogs couldn’t understand that their owners could no longer see. (And, yes, the experiments was designed to avoid dogs falsely associating sudden darkness with someone giving them food.)
The results showed that dogs were four times more likely to steal the forbidden food when the lights were turned off and their humans could not see their “naughty” behavior. Dr Juliane Kaminski, from the University of Portsmouth’s psychology department, told the BBC that the study was “incredible because it implies dogs understand the human can’t see them, meaning they might understand the human perspective.” However, she did add that “we still can’t be completely sure if the results mean dogs have a truly flexible understanding of the mind,” noting that previously only humans were believed to have this ability.
Keep that in mind next time you’re looking for someone to complain to about your relationship.




3. Golden Retriever
MICHAEL KLOTH / CORBIS
Is there a dog more beautiful than this blonde bombshell? The Golden Retriever’s shiny, soft coat is irresistible for animal-lovers, but it’s their personalities that make them a family favorite. Goldens are known to be kind, friendly and confident. They may not make the best guard dogs, but they will be fast friends with any humans they come in contact with.  2011 Ranking: 4


Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/18/mans-best-friend-dogs-may-understand-human-perspective-better-than-previously-thought/#ixzz2LSnHRsAu


Dogs understand human perspective, say researchers

Springer spanielDogs can understand a human perspective, say researchers
Dogs are more capable of understanding situations from a human's point of view than has previously been recognised, according to researchers.
They found dogs were four times more likely to steal food they had been forbidden, when lights were turned off so humans in the room could not see.
This suggested the dogs were able to alter their behaviour when they knew their owners' perspective had changed.
The study, published in Animal Cognition, conducted tests on 84 dogs.
The experiments had been trying to find whether dogs could adapt their behaviour in response to the changed circumstances of their human owners.
It wanted to see if dogs had a "flexible understanding" that could show they understood the viewpoint of a human.
Dog's understanding
It found that when the lights were turned off, dogs in a room with their human owners were much more likely to disobey and steal forbidden food.
The study says it is "unlikely that the dogs simply forgot that the human was in the room" when there was no light. Instead it seems as though the dogs were able to differentiate between when the human was unable or able to see them.
Juliane KaminskiJuliane Kaminski carried out the research into how dogs are influenced by human circumstances
The experiments had been designed with enough variations to avoid false associations - such as dogs beginning to associate sudden darkness with someone giving them food, researchers said.
Dr Juliane Kaminski, from the University of Portsmouth's psychology department, said the study was "incredible because it implies dogs understand the human can't see them, meaning they might understand the human perspective".
This could also be important in understanding the capacities of dogs that have to interact closely with humans, such as guide dogs for the blind and sniffer dogs.
Previous studies have suggested that although humans might think that they can recognise different expressions on their dogs' faces, this is often inaccurate and a projection of human emotions.
"Humans constantly attribute certain qualities and emotions to other living things. We know that our own dog is clever or sensitive, but that's us thinking, not them," said Dr Kaminski.
"These results suggest humans might be right, where dogs are concerned, but we still can't be completely sure if the results mean dogs have a truly flexible understanding of the mind and others' minds. It has always been assumed only humans had this ability."

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/new-study-dogs-understand-what-human-thoughts-sorta

DOG THOUGHTS

Dogs Sneakily Steal Things Because They Understand Human Behavior

If you live with a dog, or hopefully several, you might already be aware of the vast underestimation on the part of science of the abilities of dogs to think, feel, and generally understand stuff in ways that have rough analogs in the thoughts, feelings, and understandings of human beings. I say this as someone that has an above-average distrust of intuition and anecdote: my dog gets stuff. He performs behaviors that make sense from a human's perspective, ones that are not based on mimicry for the sake of food and other necessities of dog life that I, as a gullible human, can provide.
I say this with some doubt, of course. I know the research: dogs are amazing learners and have exploitation down perfectly. This is how dogs evolved, exploiting the needs (hunting, emotional rescue, or otherwise) of humans for food and, thus, survival. (The dog/human thing is a case of co-evolution, more specifically; that is, we were obviously pushing the relationship too.) So, dogs don't really love us, or at least in any way we might recognize based on our own sense of love: they're just in it for the Taste of the Wild.
Today I come bearing good news for friends-of-dogs. First off, a journal exists called Animal Cognition that is focused entirely on what animals do and don't "get." Second, the new edition of said journal contains a study titled "Dogs Steal in the Dark," containing new evidence that dogs have a higher-level understanding of human behavior that previously thought. I'll give fair warning: this isn't the sort of thing that will make you never look at your dog the same again, but it is some validation.
Basically, the study took a bunch of dogs and tested them in an environment where they would have to understand a human perspective in order to react in a particular way. Researchers used 84 dogs and placed them in different lighting environments with a human and some food. The dog was told not to eat the food -- and were presumably well-trained enough to not do it anyway under any conditions, like some bad dogs would (kidding: there are no bad dogs) -- and in a situation when a human could be seen by the dog but the dog and food remained in the dark, the dogs went for it. So, dogs steal in the dark, OK.
The four test conditions of the study/Juliane Kaminski
So what, you ask? I did. I see a bottomless pool of dog behavior demonstrating that my dog understands human perspectives on a constant basis. Call it validation then, but also an interesting clue into the long-term evolutionary relationship between dogs and people--which, dog-friend or not, is important in the grand scheme of human development--and also the tantalizing whiff of more validation to come.
Lead researcher Juliane Kaminski told the BBC, "These results suggest humans might be right, where dogs are concerned, but we still can't be completely sure if the results mean dogs have a truly flexible understanding of the mind and others' minds. It has always been assumed only humans had this ability."
A friend of mine and fellow friend-of-dogs scoffed at the study, as most other friends-of-dogs probably will, but made this good point: "as long as it results in Neil DeGrasse Tyson having some goofy interaction with a border collie for a documentary I guess I'm all for it." Yes, please.
Reach this writer at michaelb@motherboard.tv. Top image: the author's dog Harley, by Abby LogsdonBy Michael Byrne 1 week ago Tags: dog thoughtsJuliane Kaminskievolutiondogs
Read more: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/new-study-dogs-understand-what-human-thoughts-sorta#ixzz2LSoa0MpA