text:
GRAIN | March 2010
Land grabbing in Latin America
by GRAIN
Right now communities in Latin America, as around the world, are suffering a new kind of invasion of their territories. These invaders are not the descendants of the European conquistadores, who appropriated land, gathered slaves and plundered their colonial domains. Nor are they the big finqueros (estate owners) of the 19th and 20th centuries, who expanded their properties by carving up the territories of indigenous peoples and creating vast plantations for the production and export of commodities such as sugar cane, coffee, cacao, banana, henequen, gum, rubber and hardwoods, and who relied on what has been called "indebted servitude", forced labour under slave-like conditions. The new landowners are not those who brought industrial agriculture into Latin America either, who exploited local people's ancestral knowledge in order to adapt their methods to the new environment and climate.
It may be said of all these notorious characters, rooted to "their" lands and mansions, that they were physically present and politically powerful within the region. They fought continually among themselves to consolidate their fiefdoms (leaving a huge toll of dead soldiers). They made enemies and forged alliances to expand their control over water, labour, commerce, elections, public policies and access to land – regardless of the rights and the lives of others. Yet these overlords lived on or frequently visited their properties, and so came face-to-face with the resistance and rebellions of the people who had been invaded and dispossessed. No one feels nostalgia for them, but communities fighting them could do something directly, know who to struggle with, where to do it and when.
The history of Latin America is one of agrarian conflicts, and of indigenous peoples struggling to defend their ancestral territories. A new chapter of this history is opening. Another wave of land grabbing is hitting the Americas, and this time it operates from a distance and wears a halo of "neutrality". Today's land grabbers (as thoroughly explained in governmental web brochures) say that they are merely responding to food insecurity and a world crisis "that forces us to grow food wherever we can, even if we outsource production, because we will bring home this food for the benefit of our citizens". But when we dig a little, the financial monster shows its tail. The land grabbers are in fact big corporations and joint ventures investing enormous amounts of money in land, food production, the export and import of commodities, and food-market speculation.
Millions of hectares of farmland in Latin America have been taken over by these foreign investors over the past few years for the production of food crops and agrofuels for export. Much of the money comes from US and European pension funds, banks, private equity groups, and wealthy individuals like George Soros, and it is being channelled through special farmland investment vehicles set up by both foreign and local companies. Brazil's largest sugar company, COSAN, has a specialised farmland investment fund called Radar Propriedades, which buys Brazilian farmland on behalf of clients such as the Teachers' Insurance and Annuity Association–College Retirement Equities Fund of the US. Louis Dreyfus, one of the world's largest grain-trading multinationals, has a similar fund into which American International Group (AIG) has invested US$65 million. While media attention has focused on land deals in Africa, at least as much money and more projects are in operation in Latin America, where investors claim that their farmland investments are more secure and less controversial – ignoring the struggles over access to land being waged in practically every country on the continent. More and more investors and governments from Asia and the Gulf are training their sights on Latin America as a safe place in which to outsource food production.
Most governments in Latin America embrace these developments, with diplomatic missions frequently being sent abroad to sell the advantages of investing in their countries' farmland. The Brazilian Minister of Development, Miguel Jorge, recently told reporters: "Some Saudi princes with whom we met last year […] told President Lula that they do not want to invest in agriculture in Brazil in order to sell here in Brazil, they want food supply sources. They need food. So it would be much more effective to have them invest in agriculture in Brazil in order for us to be direct suppliers to those countries."
But Brazil is not only a target of the new land grabbers, it is also a source. Brazilian investors, backed by their government, are buying land to produce food and biofuels in a growing number of other countries in Latin America and Africa. In neighbouring Guyana, for instance, the Brazilian government is financing the construction of roads, bridges and other infrastructure to open up Guyana's ecologically sensitive Rupununi savannah to large-scale agricultural projects that will export crops to Brazil. Some Brazilian rice producers who are now negotiating with the Government of Guyana for 99-year leases to large areas of indigenous lands in the Rupununi savannah were recently forced by the Brazilian Supreme Court to abandon lands that they had taken illegally from indigenous communities on their own side of the border, in Raposa Serra do Sol. The multinational seed company RiceTec has approached the government of Guyana for
about 2,000 ha of land in the same region – a diverse and fragile ecosystem that is home to several indigenous peoples. With this new way of doing business, the former landlords and invaders get new opportunities to grab land, with fewer economic and political risks, and a new, "respectable" title of "foreign investors".
Evading responsibility
Much is at stake in this new wave of large-scale land grabs. They entail a huge loss of national sovereignty. Any country that sells or leases vast expanses of arable land through long-term contracts to another country or foreign corporation is jeopardising its own national sovereignty. Such deals hasten the more general dismantling of the State – in which more and more functions are cut, privatised and transformed to suit the interests of big business – and the larger territorial dispossession of peoples and communities. As a result, labour is dislocated and migration intensifies. Food production too is dislocated, since, under these deals, governments or private investors take over land to produce food for export to people elsewhere. Investors arrive with their seeds and tractors, and even labour, to extract nutrients from the soils and water of the "host country" and ship them back to their home countries or to global markets in food commodities. The host countries cannot be considered "exporters" in the traditional sense, since no country, no local people are really involved in the projects – just land that corporations exploit for their own profit, without restriction.
Yet the lands targeted are never empty, idle or not needed by local people without access to sufficient land. The first question that must be asked is, therefore: who are the real owners or custodians of the land that is being grabbed and controlled from afar? How is it that our governments can put such huge expanses of land at the disposal of foreign governments or corporations? Are they privately owned? Or are governments simply expropriating them for ad hoc commercial arrangements? It is said that the lands are only being leased, not sold, but what is the difference – in terms of the devastation – between being sold outright and leased for 50 or 99 years? The lessees will eventually hand back not only the land, depleted and ruined, but also the cost of recovering its fertility. These land grabs all drive forward the expansion of a destructive model of industrial agriculture.
The new wave of land invasions also complicates people's defence of their territories. The invader is more difficult to identify. The legal mechanisms that communities can utilise to defend against dispossession, devastation or pollution are not clear. Even where the investors can be identifiable, they are shielded from the affected communities by distance and by complex legal structures. Any "battle" against them is set in a time and space that is not defined at all by the communities or organisations.
The State, instead of protecting its people, protects the investments of foreign companies and governments by criminalising and repressing the communities who defend their territories. Borders thus lose meaning. The structures of the host State serve the interests of their new foreign "bosses", not in the manner of the old colonial system of tribute, but through the new neoliberal commercial system, where laws and regulations are dictated by free trade agreements and investment treaties instead of national constitutions or even international law.
But the most profound long-term consequence of this new wave of land grabbing is the expansion of corporate control over food production. Over the last fifty years, corporations have constructed the framework that facilitates today's land grab, and now they are moving in to reap the harvest. Land grabbing is not simply the latest opportunity to make speculative investments for quick, massive profits; it is part of a longer process in which agrochemical–pharma–food–transport corporations are taking control of agriculture.
This is why self-governing communities prepared to defend their territories and their systems for managing communal land are a real threat to these schemes. Every organisation that stresses the importance of food sovereignty, from the community level up, will understand that this becomes an impossible feat in countries or regimes that allow and encourage land grabbing. Indigenous communities in Latin America know that without control of their own land they lose control of food production, and their farming simply becomes a new form of sharecropping. Thus more and more communities and organisations insist upon full control over their land, to grow their own crops, using and freely exchanging their native seeds and local knowledge. They insist on complete control of their water, forests, soils, settlements and pathways. And they insist on self-government, making decisions in assemblies.
The new land grabbers, on the other hand, want to enclose more of the commons. They want to dismantle our relationships and connections. They no longer need to invade: they can make commercial deals. They no longer have to carry the burden of maintaining slaves; they can rely on a ready supply of low-wage labour. They are no longer responsible for crushing the rebellious; the host governments will deal with those issues. If they do not, appropriate international companies will provide the service through informal gunmen. Neoliberalism is the invention of scheme upon scheme to avoid responsibility. To reverse the tide, we need to base our future upon taking responsibility.
Going further
• The website that monitors land grabbing worldwide is http://farmlandgrab.org
• The new farm owners, Against the Grain, October 2009. http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=55• Seized! The 2008 land grab for food and financial security, GRAIN Briefing, October 2008. http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=212
Alexandre Rocha, "Brazilian Minister: Arabs are great opportunity", ANBA, 8 February 2010: http://farmlandgrab.org/11020
"Expelled Brazil rice farmer looking to shift operations to Guyana", Stabroek News, 14 May 2009: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/stories/05/14/expelled-brazil-rice-farmer-looking-to-shift-operations-to-guyana/


text: Indiana is a no blowjob state Added by: Idiot Laws Admin | Indiana | 24 Comments Oral sex is against the law in the state of Indiana. It's only fair to share...FacebookTwitterLinkedinRedditStumbleUpon Related Posts Don't have to pay your kids medical care…if you pray for them! 2 Comments Indiana residents must remain stinky! 15 Comments God Damn + Fucking Jesus Christ = $$ Fines! 1 Comment No tail lights on pedestrians allowed. 2 Comments 24 Comments Kris Keefer September 15, 2016 Reply I don't live in Indiana, but I can give head all day every day. I swallow, too! I will also fu€k any guy who doesn't mind that I have been ridden more than Seattle Slew! Blowme January 6, 2015 Reply Road head in indiana get it and live here kayla July 1, 2012 Reply you girls who love it giving it… thats all fine and dandy except it makes you look like big SLUTS to post it and not only that but um obviously your desparate to get attention. YOUR DISGUSTING vash October 27, 2010 Reply oh sh*t i live in indiana and my girlfriend gives me a blowjob all the time. yo dick June 30, 2010 Reply i live in michigan i got ablowjob down there and drove back so in can suck my dick Chloe June 6, 2010 Reply How is anyone supposed to know that you've given/received head?? Umm so we'll just check your penis for any saliva…. Fail. Heck you'd have to do it in public, and if your doin it in public, you need help. scott ozello May 12, 2010 Reply I got head in Indiana and have got a shirt that says, "Got an Indy blow job, no fine or arrest, jut got this stinking t-shirt and my girl friend got a facial!" Marcus April 17, 2010 Reply LMFAO wayne who commits a crime while getting a blow job lol ya Mr. So in So your charge with robbery and getting a blow job lolz yep happens everyday Wayne April 29, 2010 Reply lmfao/wu yeah, if someone was to go in an burglarize a home and was to rape someone, and force oral pleasure on that person, . . .well, I think you are smart enough to see where that would go. The prosecutors will try to come up with any violations they can think of in hopes that some will stick. Wayne March 16, 2010 Reply Blow jobs fall under the Sodomy laws. One that is not enforced, unless you were committing a crime in the process. d.j. morse January 2, 2010 Reply THERE SHOULD BE A LEW IN EVERY STATE THAT SAYS YOU SHOULD GET ATLEAST 1 BLOWJOB A DAY!!!!!!!!!!!! The Shizel December 30, 2009 Reply Dude i live dere i dont understand people with all the rumors man my girl loves given head i live in indiana Samantha S. December 14, 2009 Reply I love giving head im da best at it(lol)well guys find a way to hit me up lol! http://www.myspace.com/juggalett_homie add me then ill tell u my facebook Jack A. October 7, 2009 Reply Guess I'll be an outlaw then because I wont be able to turn down getting a blow job. ashley June 29, 2009 Reply i love giving head!!~ i do it everyday. Wayne June 25, 2010 Reply my hat is off to ya. keep it up,. . .er, you know what I mean. 😉 Ariel April 29, 2009 Reply i agree with bill, but i don't care because well… blow jobs are fun(well unless they bust in your mouth. lol.) Mary Carey March 4, 2009 Reply I love giving blow jobs – I am sorry that I am breaking the law! Bill February 26, 2009 Reply like this one is ever enforced: Mr ______ you are being charged with giving oral pleasure to a female in public. Mrs ______ you are being charged with giving oral pleasure to a male in public. How do you plea? Guilty- I love giving and receiving. Anna February 24, 2009 Reply Now what cop is going to look through peoples bedroom window and bust them for performing a blowjob. And Indy is full of blow job freaks. They all on the down low. trust me i live there. Bri January 27, 2009 Reply i'm glad it's illegal that's just sick and not all people in Indiana are blowjob freaks belive me I LIVE THERE!!!!!!! brainteezer January 2, 2009 Reply THIS IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FUNNY, THEY ARE ALL BLOWJOB FREAKS IN INDIANA Maria November 25, 2008 Reply Yo,that's so dumb what the heck. Girls love to do it and guys love it. I ain't moving to Indiana!!! Alex October 31, 2008 Reply Man, that's too bad; I love dome. I guess i'll tell my hoes to stop. Add a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment:*Name:* Email Address:* Website: Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Δ

subset: commoncrawl


text:
An Indian walks into a cafe with a shotgun in one hand and pulling a male buffalo with the other. He says to the waiter:
"Want coffee."
The waiter says, "Sure, Chief. Coming right up."
He gets the Indian a tall mug of coffee . . .
The Indian drinks the coffee down in one gulp, turns and blasts the buffalo with the shotgun, causing parts of the animal to splatter everywhere and then just walks out.
The next morning the Indian returns.
He has his shotgun in one hand, pulling another male buffalo with the other.
He walks up to the counter and says to the waiter:
"Want coffee."
The waiter says, "Whoa, Tonto!
We're still cleaning up your mess from yesterday. What was all that about, anyway?"
The Indian smiles and proudly says,
"Training for a position in United States Congress . . . Come in, drink coffee, shoot the bull, leave mess for others to clean up, disappear for rest of day."


text:
WPC 2010 Brings Windows 7 SP1, InTune Beta 2, SBS News, More
I wasn't able to attend this week's Microsoft Worldwide Partner Conference because of a last minute change to my work-related commitments. And that's too bad. I love Washington D.C., where WPC is being held this year. But more important, of course, WPC has offered up a ton of news from a variety of Microsoft product groups. In fact, WPC has become such a hotbed for announcements in recent years that it's largely replaced PDC (Professional Developers Conference) and WINHEC (Windows Hardware Engineering Conference) as the most important stealth Microsoft event.
Where to start?
Service Pack for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. If you've been waiting to check out SP1, it's available now in Beta form. Remember, however, that SP1 doesn't offer much for Windows 7. It is, however, a major update for R2, with new features like Dynamic Memory for Hyper-V and RemoteFX.
Windows Small Business Server 7 and "Aurora." I've been getting increasingly frantic emails about the future of Windows Small Business Server, since the current version is based on Windows Server 2008 and shipped years ago. I've been biting my tongue for months, but can now discuss the fact that Microsoft is updating the SBS product line with not one but two new products based on the Server 2008 R2 codebase. The first, called Windows SBS 7, is a traditional SBS product with on-premise solutions that offers a logical upgrade path for current SBS customers. The other, currently codenamed Aurora, takes SBS where I believe it needs to go: To the cloud. Microsoft calls it is a "cross-premise" solution because it offers the on-premise services that make sense--storage, ID management through Active Directory, security, and so on--but lets customers mix and match with the cloud services--read: hosted Exchange and SharePoint--that they need.
I am particularly excited about SBS "Aurora" and will reviewing this product as soon as possible. For now, if you want to learn a bit more about either SBS update, check out my preview.
Windows InTune Beta 2. We just discussed Microsoft's in-beta Windows InTune management service last week, and this week Microsoft provided a major update, releasing the Beta 2 version of the product and announcing pricing. Like Beta 1, InTune Beta 2 is a public beta, and like Beta 1, it will only be made available to a limited audience, so sign up fast if you want to check it out. (That said, the pool is bigger this time, with 10,000 open slots available in Beta 2.)
Windows InTune Beta 2 comes with some new functionality, but the big news this time around is that Microsoft will provide a multi-account management console so that partners that sell and service this product will be able to manage multiple accounts through a single location. It was a big feature request, I bet.
As for pricing, Microsoft will make InTune available to paying customers in early 2011 for $11 per PC per month. This cost includes the InTune cloud management service with integrated functionality, as expected, but it also includes Windows 7 Enterprise upgrade rights for each covered PC. Additionally, customers that license InTune can also license the excellent and diverse Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack (MDOP) for an additional $1 per PC. MDOP provides a number of on-premise client management tools that, in Microsoft's words, "complete" what InTune offers from the cloud.
Slate PCs. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer pledged at WPC this week that Microsoft's partners--including heavyweight, tier-1 PC maker partners like Dell, Samsung, and Toshiba--would ship Slate PCs (and a variety of other Tablet PC types) by the end of the year. These PCs will run Windows 7 and, unlike the Apple iPad market leader, will provide business solutions as well as consumer offerings.
Of course, Ballmer previously pledged--at CES 2010 in January--that these Slate PCs would appear this year. The difference is that in January, Ballmer was showing off an HP Slate PC that is now in limbo, either because of the unexpected success of the iPad or, more likely, because HP is going to forego Windows 7 and go with Palm's WebOS instead. (HP purchased Palm a few months back.) I think it's safe to assume that HP's Slate won't ship in a Windows 7 version.
Windows Phone. Microsoft is gearing up to deliver Windows Phone 7 by the end of the year--in October, according to one particularly loose-lipped executive--and this week, the software giant delivered the first beta version of its Windows Phone developers tools. (The previous versions were categorized as CTP, for Community Technical Preview.) This includes a completely integrated version of Expression Blend (allowing you to graphically design Windows Phone apps) and a near-final version of the Windows Phone SDK, among other tools.
As exciting, perhaps, Microsoft will begin shipping prototype Windows Phone devices to developers next week, allowing them to test their new applications on actual (not production quality) hardware. Check out the Windows Phone Developer blog if you want to be included, though understand that only a limited number of devices are available.


text:
I have trouble understanding the concept of 野菜ソムリエ.
I have searched Wikipedia and others but I can't understand if it is the name of a media job, or the name of a restaurant job.
I feel it might be more of a cultural question actually, but I don't know yet as I don't understand the word itself.


text:
The Song
"All You Zombies" has a highly unusual song form in that except for the solo section, all other sections are the same and use the same chord progression. The only difference between the verse and chorus is the lyrics and a slight arrangement change. The form looks like this:
Intro, Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Intro, Solo, Verse, Chorus, Chorus, Outro
The Arrangement
This is a rather long song and it takes a bit of skill to keep interesting since it's virtually the same chord pattern repeating over and over.
The Foundation: Kick, hi-hat, bass
The Pad: Synth/organ
The Rhythm: Reggae-style guitar
The Lead: High and low unison/harmony vocals
The Fills: Lead guitar
The arrangement changes from the verse to the chorus by adding a strummed guitar, doubling the vocals, and adding an additional synth pad. The second intro also features a synth solo, which makes it different from the first intro.
The Sound
The song is swimming in effects, which is totally appropriate and very much a product of the 80's. Everything (especially the vocals) has a lot of delay, which doesn't seem to be timed to the track so it sticks out. The drums have a lot of short room reverb when they enter in the guitar solo, which makes the part stand out from the rest of the song. The song isn't all that loud by today's standards, but remember that it was recorded during a time gentle compression during recording and mastering, rather than take-no-prisoners crushing that we hear today.
The Production
The only way this type of a song doesn't get boring is with great production. Producer Rick Chertoff got great performances from the players, and they have to be special in a song like this. I especially like the tom fills at the end of the sections, which are both played well and sound great. Having the low unison vocal change to a harmony at the end of the lines is an inspired idea, and having the arrangement change enough to separate the song sections is a must, and it's done well.
Send me your ideas for song analysis.
Help support this blog. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this website with no cost to you.You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.
Don't forget to check out my Music 3.0 blog for tips and tricks on navigating social media and the new music business.


text:
English edit
Etymology edit
From Latin catēnātus ("chained"), from catēnāre, from catēna ("chain").
Pronunciation edit
Adjective edit
catenative (not comparable)
- Having the ability to catenate, or form chains.
- 1980, Grzegorz Rozenberg, Arto Salomaa, The Mathematical Theory of L Systems, page 20:
- In this section we shall investigate some of the basic properties of D0L systems that generate locally catenative sequences. These locally catenative D0L systems form one of the mathematically most natural subclasses of the class of D0L systems.
- 2004, Stephan Gramley, Kurt-Michael Pätzold, A Survey of Modern English, 2nd edition, page 135:
- Nonfinite complements which refer to a time before that of the main or catenative predicator are exclusively expressed by {-ing} forms (e.g. I remember doing it; She admits going; They deny being there).
- 2009, Toshikazu S. Foley, Biblical Translation in Chinese and Greek: Verbal Aspect in Theory and Practice[1], page 213:
- An example of catenative construction of the infinitive has already been observed in (10), where the present infinitive λέγειν is used as a complement or object of the verb θέλοι.
Derived terms edit
Related terms edit
Translations edit
having the ability to catenate
Noun edit
catenative (plural catenatives)
- (linguistics) A catenative verb.
- 1982, Martha Kolln, Understanding English Grammar[2], page 229:
- There is a certain arbitrariness in the way catenatives work. For example, we can use the verb like with either a gerund or an infinitive as its object: […] .
- 2010, Peter Fenn, A Student's Advanced Grammar of English (SAGE)[3], page 492:
- Just as many catenatives are followed by the infinitive, so others take the gerund.
- 2010, Stanley E. Porter, Jeffrey T. Reed, Matthew Brook O'Donnell, Fundamentals of New Testament Greek, page 351:
- Unlike periphrastics, however, catenatives combine certain verbs (e.g., impersonal δεῖ) with an infinitive.
- 2014, Paula Menyuk, Jacqueline W. Liebergott, Martin C. Schultz, Early Language Development in Full-term and Premature Infants, page 225:
- Sentences containing catenatives (e.g., gonna, wanna, haveta, etc.) have one proposition, coded by the main verb following these.


text:
Federal law states that "No otherwise qualified person with a disability in the United States shall, solely by reason of disability, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
A person with a disability includes any person who:
- Has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities
- Has a record of such an impairment
- Regarded as having such an impairment
A "qualified person with a disability" is defined as one who meets the academic and technical standards requisite to admission or participation in the educational program or activity.
Federal law protects the rights of qualified individuals who have disabilities generally:
Blindness/visual impairment, Cerebral palsy, AIDS, Deafness/hearing impairment, Arthritis, Epilepsy or seizure disorder, Cancer, Orthopedic/mobility impairment, Cardiac disease, Specific learning disability, Diabetes, Speech and language disorder, Multiple sclerosis, Spinal cord injury, Muscular dystrophy, Tourettes syndrome, Psychiatric disability, and Traumatic brain injury.
Under the provisions of Federal law Adams State University may not discriminate in the recruitment, admission, educational process, or treatment of students. Students who have self-identified, provided satisfactory documentation of disability, and requested reasonable accommodations are entitled to receive reasonable accommodations, appropriate academic adjustments, or auxiliary aids and services that enable them to participate in and benefit from all educational programs and activities.
Federal law specifies that colleges and universities may not limit the number of students with disabilities admitted, make preadmission inquiries as to whether or not an applicant has a disability, use admission tests or criteria that inadequately measure the academic qualifications of qualified students with disabilities because required accommodations were not made, exclude a qualified student with a disability from any course of study, or establish rules and policies that may adversely affect qualified students with disabilities.
Modifications and accommodations for students with disabilities generally include, removal of architectural barriers, provision of services such as readers for students with blindness, visual impairments, or learning disabilities; scribes for students with orthopedic impairments; and note-takers for students with hearing impairments, learning disabilities, or orthopedic impairments provision of modifications, substitutions, or waivers of courses in major fields of study or degree requirements on a case-by-case basis (such an accommodation need not be made if the institution can demonstrate that the changes requested would substantially alter essential elements of the course or program) allowing extra time to complete exams, permitting exams to be individually proctored, read orally, dictated, or typed, use of alternative forms of tests for students to demonstrate course mastery permitting the use of computer software programs or other assistive technological devices to assist in test taking and study skills.
Federal law referred to in this handbook includes Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.


text:
Nearly 20 months after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ordered a department-wide review of several key immigration enforcement programs, the Obama administration has shifted the focus of immigration enforcement to primarily target noncitizens convicted of serious crimes.
The new initiatives invoke traditional principles of prosecutorial discretion that guide the government's priorities on whom to detain and whom to remove from the country. But at a time when prospects for an immigration reform bill appear elusive, these administrative changes have gained significance and attracted controversy.
Perhaps the most notable evidence of the shift comes from memos issued by John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
On June 30, Morton released a memo that instructs ICE officers to use the agency's "limited enforcement resources" to prioritize the removal of noncitizens who pose a "danger to national security or a risk to public safety."
The memo also states that "absent extraordinary circumstances," ICE field office directors should not place in immigration detention individuals known to be suffering from serious mental or physical illnesses, or those who are disabled, elderly, pregnant, or the primary caretakers of young children or infirm relatives.
Two months later, on August 20, Morton's office issued another memo directing ICE officers to move to dismiss removal proceedings for noncitizens who appear to be immediately eligible for permanent resident status based on applications filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
The August 20 memo also states that ICE will coordinate efforts with USCIS to speed the adjudication of all such applications. In addition, the agencies will strive to make a decision on these applications within 45 days for nondetained individuals and within 30 days for detained immigrants.
Also in August 2010, ICE released a draft policy proposal that would give immigration officers discretion in issuing "detainers" for noncitizens whom state and local law enforcement agents have arrested. ICE seeks custody of such individuals through a detainer.
The draft proposal instructs ICE officers not to place detainers on individuals charged only with misdemeanor traffic violations unless they have a prior immigration or criminal history or have been arrested in conjunction with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, causing physical injury, or fleeing the scene of an accident.
Other Moves
Though not formally announced as a policy shift, various news agencies have reported that ICE is also not initiating removal proceedings against many unauthorized students, particularly those who could potentially qualify for immigration relief under the proposed Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. That bill would allow certain unauthorized immigrants who entered the United States as children to apply for legal status.
A New York Times article found that even when students publicly disclosed their unauthorized status or were arrested as part of student protests, sit-ins, and rallies in support of the DREAM Act, ICE had not brought removal proceedings against them.
Although the government has maintained it does not have a formal policy governing unauthorized students, practice seems to suggest their removal is a low priority.
The Obama administration has also shifted its worksite-enforcement strategy. Instead of high-profile raids that focus on arresting unauthorized workers, the administration has targeted employers that hire unauthorized immigrants. According to DHS statistics released to The New York Times in September, between October 1, 2009, and July 31, 2010, ICE initiated investigations of 2,073 businesses compared to 1,461 businesses in all of fiscal year (FY) 2009.
Beyond enforcement, a draft memo from USCIS leaked to the public in July suggests the Obama administration has contemplated an even broader array of administrative measures in the absence of a legislative overhaul.
These range from relatively minor changes, such as expanding the amount of time visitors and temporary workers may stay after their visas expire, to several significant shifts in policy, such as allowing certain immigrants currently holding temporary protected status (a humanitarian status for qualified nationals from designated countries) to apply for lawful permanent residence.
Prosecutorial Discretion and Immigration Policy
ICE's recent policy shifts are rooted in prosecutorial discretion, a well-established legal principle that allows law enforcement agents to decline to prosecute an individual if it is determined that such a prosecution will not serve a substantial law-enforcement or public interest.
While the concept of prosecutorial discretion has existed in the criminal-law context for decades, it has been increasingly applied in immigration law since the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which severely curtailed the ability of immigration judges to cancel deportations.
In November 2000, Doris Meissner, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner during the Clinton administration, issued a memo advising immigration officers to exercise prosecutorial discretion "at all stages in the enforcement process—from planning investigations to enforcing final orders."
Subsequent INS and DHS officials in the Bush administration, including former ICE Director Julie Myers and Principal Legal Advisor William Howard, issued supplemental memos outlining circumstances that warrant prosecutorial discretion.
Reasons for the Memos
The new ICE memos note that prosecutorial discretion is intended to ensure ICE uses its limited resources efficiently and effectively. In his June 30 memo, Morton notes that ICE only has the capacity to remove 400,000 unauthorized immigrants each year, less than 4 percent of the estimated current unauthorized immigrant population.
The policy changes are also intended to relieve pressure on the federal immigration court system, which is experiencing enormous delays as a result of a crippling case load.
A recent report from the Transactional Records Clearinghouse found that the number of cases pending before the immigration courts in June 2010 reached an all-time high of 247,922, and the average length of time a case had been pending was 459 days.
Criticism of the Enforcement Shift
The Obama administration's efforts to shift immigration enforcement priorities have not escaped criticism. In particular, various conservative politicians have argued the new policies amount to "back-door amnesty" and an executive branch attempt to legislate immigration policy.
On June 21, several Republican senators sent a letter to President Obama, asking for confirmation that the administration was not planning to use discretionary measures in order to "change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States."
One month later, the same group of senators sent a letter to Napolitano, requesting data on the number and the circumstances under which the administration had granted temporary "deferred action" status to unauthorized immigrants, in order to "guarantee the American people that the administration is not using discretionary action in cases that are not urgent or based on humanitarian reasons."
DHS, however, has emphasized that while it has expanded the use of prosecutorial discretion for certain categories of immigrants, it has simultaneously increased the number of noncitizens removed from the country, particularly criminal aliens.
According to ICE statistics, the agency removed from the country 389,834 individuals in FY 2009, an increase of 34 percent over the number of people removed in FY 2007 (291,060). The government's fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.
More recent statistics indicate that as of September 7, 2010, in FY 2010, ICE had removed 353,392 noncitizens, 50 percent of whom (176,736) had criminal convictions. During FY 2008 and 2009, criminal aliens constituted roughly 30 percent to 35 percent of all individuals removed.
Hazleton Ordinances Targeting Unauthorized Immigrants Ruled Unconstitutional
Several ordinances related to unauthorized immigrants that the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, passed in 2006 and 2007 are unconstitutional, a federal appeals court has ruled, affirming a lower-court decision. The ordinances would have banned the rental of housing to unauthorized immigrants and allowed the city to suspend the business licenses of employers that hired unauthorized immigrants.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that federal law preempted most of the key Hazleton provisions, which the court said also violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
The City of Hazleton plans to appeal the Third Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court, according to statements from Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta.
Coincidentally, the Supreme Court has already agreed to review a 2008 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld a similar law in Arizona. Thus, the Supreme Court will need to confront conflicting rulings from two separate courts of appeal. This means the fate of ordinances similar to Hazleton's will have to await the outcome of the Supreme Court decision.
The Hazleton ruling is significant because the lawsuit was one of the earliest high-profile cases challenging the constitutionality of a local ordinance that targeted unauthorized immigrants. It is the only such case to go to a full trial on the merits, not just on issues of law.
The Hazleton ordinances would have made it unlawful for any business entity to "recruit, hire for employment or continue to employ, permit, dispatch, or instruct" any person who was found to be an "unlawful worker," and would have allowed the city to suspend the business licenses of those who employed unauthorized immigrants.
The ordinances also would have prohibited landlords in Hazleton from renting to unauthorized immigrants. Landlords found to be renting housing to unauthorized immigrants or "harboring" unauthorized immigrants within rented housing units could have faced an initial fine of $1,000 per unauthorized occupant, and an additional fine of $100 per unauthorized occupant per day until the violation was corrected.
In August 2006, a coalition of immigrant rights and civil liberties groups filed suit against Hazleton, challenging the ordinance's constitutionality. On July 26, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge James Munley ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and prohibited Hazleton from enforcing its immigration-related ordinances. Hazleton subsequently appealed that decision to the U.S. Third Circuit Court.
Decline in the Size of the Unauthorized Population. The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States has declined by roughly 8 percent, from a high of 12 million people in March 2007 to approximately 11.1 million in March 2009, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. The Pew estimate is largely consistent with a January 2010 DHS report, which also found a significant drop in the size of the unauthorized population. Experts disagree, however, on how much of the current drop is attributable to increased border security and interior enforcement efforts and how much to the U.S. recession.
SB 1070 Lawsuits. U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton has dismissed two of the seven lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new immigration enforcement law, SB 1070. Bolton issued an order August 31 dismissing the legal challenge filed by Tucson police officer Martin Escobar, writing that Escobar lacked "standing to sue" because he could not show that he would directly suffer harm as a result of the proposed law. Bolton also dismissed the claim of Washington, DC, resident Roberto Frisancho, who had alleged that his constitutional rights would be violated when he traveled to Arizona. The recent decisions do not affect Bolton's previous ruling temporarily halting many of SB 1070's key provisions.
Opting out of Secure Communities. Localities that do not want to participate in the ICE Secure Communities program may be permitted to "opt out," according to an ICE fact sheet. Launched in October 2008, the program checks the immigration status of all individuals booked in state and local jails by running their fingerprints against federal immigration databases. If a check reveals that an individual may be removable, the program automatically notifies ICE. Several local officials in California asked about opting out of the program after ICE signed a statewide memorandum of agreement with the California Department of Justice's State Identification Bureau. Since then, some local officials have expressed concerns that Secure Communities undermines cooperation between the police and immigrant communities.
Justice Department Suit against Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing the sheriff's office in Maricopa County, Arizona, alleging that the office has refused to cooperate with a federal investigation into complaints of discrimination and racial profiling. In March 2009, DOJ began its investigation after receiving complaints that the sheriff's office routinely violated individuals' civil rights during its immigration enforcement operations.
E-Verify Photo Tool Expanded. DHS has expanded its photo database for the federal E-Verify program to include U.S. passport photos, and it plans to include state driver's license photos beginning in 2011. E-Verify allows employers to check whether new employees are authorized to work by entering their names and biographic information into an online database. Since September 2007, E-Verify has included a photo screening tool that allows employers to compare the photo on a new employee's identification document with a government photo stored in the system's database. Until September, E-Verify only included photos from recently issued lawful permanent resident cards and employment authorization documents.
Death Toll on the Arizona Border. The number of people who died attempting to cross into the United States through Arizona rose substantially during the summer of 2010, according to Associated Press news reports. In July, 59 bodies were found in the Arizona border region, the highest death count in a single month since July 2005, when 68 people were found dead. The soaring death toll is particularly significant in light of Arizona's recent immigration enforcement measures and reports suggesting that the number of unauthorized immigrants entering the United States has declined substantially since 2007.
Retroactive Application of Padilla Standard. A state supreme court judge in Brooklyn held that a lawful permanent resident who relied on poor legal advice while pleading guilty to misdemeanor drug possession in 2008 could move to have his conviction vacated based on the Supreme Court's March 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky. In that case, the Court ruled that criminal defense attorneys must advise their immigrant clients of the potential immigration consequences of pleading guilty to certain offenses, including drug possession. The case is one of the first to rule in favor of a retroactive application of the Padilla standard.
State and Local Policy Beat in Brief
New York Memo on Schools Asking about Immigration Status. The New York State Education Department has prohibited schools from asking students about their immigration status at the time of their registration. The memo was issued after the New York Civil Liberties Union found that 139 of the state's school districts either asked for proof of immigration status at a time a child was registered for school, or asked for documentation that only U.S. citizens or lawful immigrants would have — such as a Social Security number. Under a 1982 Supreme Court decision (Plyler v. Doe), public schools may not deny primary and secondary education to students solely because they lack lawful immigration status.
Visit the MPI Data Hub for the latest stats on immigrants in New York.
Change in Virginia Policy on Driver's Licenses for Immigrants. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles will no longer accept government-issued employment authorization documents (EADs) as proof of legal status for the purpose of receiving a Virginia driver's license. Officials said the change in policy was motivated by a car accident in August in which an unauthorized immigrant is accused of driving under the influence of alcohol and causing the death of a Catholic nun. The suspect in the accident had been issued an EAD despite having been placed in immigration removal proceedings.
Visit the MPI Data Hub for the latest stats on immigrants in Virginia.


text:
Email me when this product is available.
Add To Cart
or checkout with
or checkout with
Title: Ten Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe By: Larry Osborne Format: Paperback Number of Pages: 208 Vendor: Multnomah Publication Date: 2009 | Dimensions: 8.00 X 5.19 (inches) Weight: 5 ounces ISBN: 1601421508 ISBN-13: 9781601421500 Stock No: WW421503 |
A very liberating read, as well as one that will surely deepen your trust in God. Larry takes apart ten commonly held beliefs that dont make sense because they arent true! Russ Carroll, CEO OF MIVA MERCHANT
In Ten Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe, Larry Osborne dismantles many ideas that have derailed the faith of sincere Christians for far too long. Larry has the rare capacity to communicate difficult truths in a way that ignites the imagination and disarms the soul. I strongly recommend this book to anyone seeking a deeper and more-nuanced faith. Scott Chapman, SENIOR PASTOR OF THE CHAPEL, ILLINOIS
Larry Osborne never fails to compel me to think with greater precision. Ten Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe challenges us to reevaluate what we can so glibly believe and come away with a faith that we can deeply admire. Dr. Wayne Cordeiro, AUTHOR OF THE DIVINE MENTOR, DOING CHURCH AS A TEAM AND THE LIFE JOURNAL
I recommend anything Larry Osborne writes. Hes hit another homer with Ten Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe! Larry unshackles our souls from things that threaten to destroy us. Im confident your life will be better after reading this book! Ron Forseth, VICE PRESIDENT OF OUTREACH INC. AND GENERAL EDITOR OF SERMONCENTRAL.COM
Larry Osbornes Ten Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe will help new believers and seasoned Christians alike. People often believe what theyve heard without knowing why. Larry pierces through widely accepted spiritual legends with common sense and scriptural precision. Craig Groeschel, PASTOR OF LIFECHURCH.TV AND AUTHOR OF CONFESSIONS OF A PASTOR
This is Larry Osborne at his best: scripturally sound, brutally honest, and dripping with grace. He has the guts to blow up myths that have lingered for far too long. Whether youve been reading your Bible for years or just bought your first one yesterday, you should listen to this gracious but straightforward wisdom. Greg Holden, PASTOR OF WINDSOR CROSSING COMMUNITY CHURCH, CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI
This book will liberate us from faulty assumptions about God and life that keep us trapped or looking like naive fools. Larry Osborne brings practical and biblical wisdom to bear on some beliefs that we never shouldve held and that have always confused us. His chapters on forgiving and judging alone are worth the price of the book. Mel Lawrenz, SENIOR PASTOR OF ELMBROOK CHURCH AND AUTHOR OF I WANT TO BELIEVE
For a long time the world has needed this very important book. With patience and clarity, Larry dissects erroneous beliefs that masquerade as faith. He helps us wade through the nonsenseinaccurate and misguided ideas we cling toand guides us to an understanding that results in a winsome, authentic faith the kind we all long for. Nancy Ortberg, FOUNDING PARTNER OF TEAMWORKX2 AND AUTHOR OF LOOKING FOR GOD
Larry Osborne blends pastoral experience and counterintuitive wisdom that will frustrate (in a good way), challenge, and encourage you as you seek to walk with God for a lifetime. Darrin Patrick, PASTOR OF THE JOURNEY, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
Filled with common sense from the heart, this book is a well-written and entirely biblical look at often-misunderstood principles in Scripture. I have found it not only helpful in my own life but also effective in discipling others. Great illustrations make the principles clear and easy to grasp. The game-plan illustration relating to Gods will alone is worth the price of the book. Steve Potratz, PRESIDENT OF PARABLE CHRISTIAN STORES AND THE PARABLE GROUP
I remember exactly where I was sitting during a visit to North Coast Church when I first heard my friend Larry Osborne explode the myth that faith fixes everything. I was there to learn the inner workings of the church but walked away with new insight into my faith. Since that time Larry has taught me much about the dumb things smart Christians (and even smart pastors) believe. Youll find one aha moment after another in this book. Im buying copies for all our small-group leaders. Nelson Searcy, LEAD PASTOR OF THE JOURNEY CHURCH, NEW YORK CITY
Larry Osborne takes us through misunderstandings handed down from generation to generation, from Sunday-school class to Sunday-school class. In todays jambalaya spirituality, Larry helps spiritual seekers and misinformed churchgoers sort through the true and the ridiculous. From the barbershop to the halls of traditional church, myths are circulating and now Larry brings the light and balance of Scripture to enlighten the misinformed. Stacy Spencer, SENIOR PASTOR OF NEW DIRECTION CHRISTIAN CHURCH, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
Larrys commonsense approach in addressing widely held but incorrect spiritual beliefs brings clarity and sanityfinally! The chapters on forgiveness and parenting struck a particular chord with me. Larry is a wise pastor, gifted in teaching Scripture in a way that makes biblical truth accessible and understandable. I highly recommend this book to those familiar with the Christian faith and to those who arent. Linda Stanley, DIRECTOR OF NEXT GENERATION PASTORS LEADERSHIP COMMUNITY, LEADERSHIP NETWORK
Larry Osborne pulls no punches in Ten Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe. He brings clarity and biblical insight to commonly misunderstood ideas. With books like this one, Christians will believe fewer stupid things that damage their spiritual journeys. This book is worth reading and sharing. Ed Stetzer, COAUTHOR OF COMPELLED BY LOVE
Larry Osborne gives wise counsel for all Christians. Once you start reading, this book is hard to put down. It will influence and impact your core beliefs. Tim Stripe, CO-OWNER OF GRAND PACIFIC RESORTS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I couldnt put Ten Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe down once I started reading it. Many Christians have the same issues Larry addresses with gentle clarity to correct thinking and behaviors. A great book for new and serious believers alike. Dave Travis, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF LEADERSHIP NETWORK AND AUTHOR OF BEYOND MEGACHURCH MYTHS AND BEYOND THE BOX: INNOVATIVE CHURCHES THAT WORK
Smart Christians can fall for a lot of dumb beliefs. I hadnt considered how many till I read this book, chock-full of sensible observations, disarming illustrations, and compelling scriptural insights. Larry makes you laugh while he makes you think. Ken Werlein, FOUNDING PASTOR OF FAITHBRIDGE CHURCH, HOUSTON, TEXAS
This is a great book. Its a life-changing message the world needs to hear. Everyone should buy a copy and read it. Carolyn Osborne, LARRYS MOM
What would you like to know about this product? Please enter your name, your email and your question regarding the product in the fields below, and we'll answer you in the next 24-48 hours.
If you need immediate assistance regarding this product or any other, please call 1-800-CHRISTIAN to speak directly with a customer service representative.


text:
- I want to offer a newsletter archive on my website. Can I create pdf version of my campaigns?
- Can I create a pdf version of my latest campaign
What does it do?
In our evaluate section of your campaign we offer button for each campaign.
Be aware that this is the online version , so the un-personalised version for your campaign.
How does it work?
Navigate towards your campaign.
Go to Evaluate - Campaigns - and the needed campaign.
In the evaluate section we have added a button next to the online version link of your campaign
When you click this button you will be able to download a PDF version of your campaign.


text:
Collins defines the word bijouX as
" something small and delicately worked, such as a trinket"
Back in January Monique @ A Half Baked Notion
along with hundreds of other bloggers was a participant in the
Grow Your Blog Party hosted by the wonderful Vicki @ Three Bags Full.
In her GYBP post which you can see by clicking here
Monique included a give away.
A beautiful pair of earrings and matching pendant
using beads created by UK artist Jolene Wolfe.
I won the giveaway!
Imagine my delight when a pretty box arrived here at the Presbytere recently.
Inside delicate jewelry handmade by Monique.
X cited, well of course!
Linking to Mrs Matlock's Alphabe - Thursday once again
where everything this week is X rated!