Uncommon injustice
By Rodel Rodis
Posted date: November 07, 2007
Dr. Noel Chua from his cell in Camden County, Georgia and Renato Hughes from his cell in Lake County, California share an uncannily uncommon misfortune.
Both are Filipino Americans charged with murder under a seldom-used legal doctrine that dates back to the common law rule in 12th century England, which ironically banned it in 1957.
Under this peculiar doctrine, a person can be charged with murder, instead of just manslaughter, when “a victim dies accidentally or without specific intent in the course of the commission of an applicable felony.” It makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during that felony.
This law was abolished in England and in most western countries which considered it unjust and unduly harsh, to require no finding of any intent to kill or do bodily harm for someone to be found guilty of murder and sentenced to death or life imprisonment. The United States remains the only western country where this 12th century anachronism is still in active use.
Dr. Noel Chua
Dr. Noel Chua was charged with violating Georgia’s Controlled Substance Act, and thereby causing the death of his patient Jamie Carter III. According to the District Attorney, at least 10 drugs were found in Carter’s system, some of which were prescribed by Dr. Chua who, the D.A. charged, “ignored information in medical records from other physicians indicating Carter may have had a drug problem.”
Dr. Chua, an internal medicine specialist, said that Carter had a “long history of severe migraines and had to be hospitalized twice under my care for that condition. His past medical history reveals extensive work-up and numerous hospitalizations and ER visits for the same condition.”
Unfortunately, Carter “took a combination of pain medication,” some of which were prescribed by Dr. Chua and other physicians (including a drug rehab doctor) that Carter went to before he went to Dr. Chua. The combination of drugs led to his death.
Carter died on December 15, 2005 but Dr. Chua was not arrested until September of 2006 and was still kept in jail for some time before formal charges were actually filed. The District Attorney then charged him with two murder counts and a racketeering count that allowed the DA the power to seize all of Dr. Chua’s assets. “It’s obviously a dirty, sleazy trick to grab all my money and properties so I will not be able to afford any defense on my part,” Dr. Chua charged.
With his properties in receivership (and with a receiver charging $12,000 a month to manage the estate), Dr. Chua was unable to post bail and remained in jail until his trial began on October 15. In the course of the 5-day trial, District Attorney Stephen Kelley introduced inflammatory testimony about a homosexual relationship between Dr, Chua and Carter, which was irrelevant to the charge of felony murder.
But it was effective, as the virtually all-white jury returned a verdict of guilty against Dr. Chua, a verdict which resulted in a sentence of "life imprisonment plus five years”.
Renato Hughes, Black Filipino
In the same month that Carter died in December of 2005, Renato Hughes and his friend, Christian Foster, went to visit their old friend, Rashad Williams, who was living in Clear Lake with his grandmother.
(Lake County along the state’s largest lake, is its 2nd oldest settlement. - ED)
After the three pals got together, they decided to buy some marijuana, according to Rashad’s mother. They then went to the home of Shannon Edmonds, who, according to police records, is a known marijuana grower and drug dealer.
While Renato was waiting outside, Rashad and Christian went inside the house to talk to Edmonds. It is not clear what happened to cause Edmonds to get his shotgun and kill both Rashad and Christian. Some of his earlier statements indicated that a free-for-all altercation occurred.
But the official version he gave the police was that the boys invaded his home to steal his marijuana and that he shot them in self-defense with his 9mm semi-automatic Browning. He shot Rashad twice in the back and Christian five times, also in the back. When police arrived at the scene, they found Rashad lying in the middle of 11th Street, dead, and Christian dying in bushes about 20 yards away.
Two days after the killings, District Attorney Jon Hopkins accepted Edmonds’ version entirely and charged Renato Hughes with the double murder of his friends under the felony murder doctrine as their deaths, according to the D.A., occurred while in the course of committing a felony, an armed home invasion, with special circumstance punishable by death, if convicted.
Kenneth Block, a track and field coach at Balboa High School in San Francisco who knew all three boys personally, is furious that Edmonds was not the one charged with murder. “He took two boys’ lives and now he wants to take the third one. Where is justice in that? That doesn’t make any sense. They were fleeing the scene. They were murdered! This is a case of double murder, double standard,” he said.
According to Renato’s attorney, Stephen Carter, “it's unclear whether Edmonds' place was invaded, whether a robbery occurred, or whether the three were merely hoping to buy marijuana -- and that no evidence indicates Renato Hughes was even in the house.”
"When you shoot someone who is fleeing, it's not self-defense," Carter said. "It's an execution."
While this case has attracted widespread attention in the African American community because Renato is half-Black, it has received no coverage in the Filipino American community even though Renato is half-Filipino.
The jury trial of Renato Hughes was set to begin on November 6 in Lake County, which has a population that is 75% white, 5 % black, and has hardly any Filipinos. Will Renato suffer the same fate that befell Dr. Chua?
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or send them by mail to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
What Happened in Vegas
What Happened in Vegas
By Rodel Rodis
Posted date: November 13, 2007
All roads led to Las Vegas last November 10 for Filipino medical professionals and community leaders seeking a common strategy to pressure ABC-Disney to rectify the anti-Filipino slur that appeared in the season premier episode of Desperate Housewives’ on September 30.
Dubbed a “Summit Meeting of Fil-Am Leaders,” the conference at Caesar’s Palace was hosted by the UST Medical Alumni Association of America (USTMAAA) and organized by a core group composed of Dr. Stella Evangelista, Dr. Eustaquio Abay, Dr. Joe Evangelista, Dr. Primo Andres and Dr. Dante Gapultos. It drew 98 delegates representing at least 12 medical associations and community groups who presented their position statements.
Although ABC issued a public apology after more than 100,000 people signed an online petition demanding it, the delegates believed the apology to be insincere as it did not admit that a grievous mistake had been committed and that steps would be made to correct the mistake. As Dr. Nelson Bocar from Oklahoma City explained, “Without a meaningful apology and the correction of a slur, what ABC is offering still reeks not so much of ignorance now but of arrogance still.”
In her greetings to the delegates, Los Angeles Philippine Consul-General Mary Jo Aragon acknowledged that “many Filipino-American associations remain unconvinced and unsatisfied with the steps taken by ABC/Walt Disney Co. to rectify the situation.”
Rozita Lee, the Vice-Chair of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), expressed the NaFFAA view that “ABC acted in good faith by issuing the network’s apology immediately and promptly deleting the offensive remark” and by committing “to building a relationship with the Filipino American community that will open doors to Filipino talent.”
In a position statement entitled “Engaging Corporate Media” distributed to all the delegates, NaFFAA spokesman Jon Melegrito described his meetings with ABC, the last being on November 6 in Burbank, California, with Steve MacPherson, ABC President of Prime Time Entertainment, who admitted that the joke was “a terrible mistake” and assured NaFFAA that “such jokes would not happen again.”
Despite the fact that no commitment was extracted or offered by ABC about any apology on the air, which Melegrito believes to be an unrealistic goal, he nonetheless urged the Filipino community to “see the big picture” and accept what ABC has offered.
But the delegates would not be easily placated. Dr. Lee Llacer from the Philippine Medical Association in Washington DC reported that he attended a meeting of NaFFAA officers with ABC Vice President for Diversity Robert Mendez on October 9 to discus ABC’s initiatives. “I went to that meeting to talk about ABC kicking the dog,” Dr. Llacer said, “and I felt that everybody left the meeting getting what they wanted, except the dog.”
What the delegates felt was that a poisonous idea was disseminated to 25 million viewers that Philippine-educated physicians are inferior. What ABC agreed to do was delete the scene to stop this poison from being spread to future viewers of the episode. But what should be done to undo the subliminal damage caused by the airing of the “joke”? And how do we get ABC to do what's right?
The position statement of the host organization presented 4 proposals to ABC-Disney: air a sincere, genuine apology as soon as possible; involve ABC personnel in sensitivity training and cultural awareness; present TV medical shows that depict a true representation of the medical personnel in most hospitals; and recognize and acknowledge the positive impact and huge contributions of Filipino medical practitioners in the US.
The delegates then heard strategies to pressure ABC/Disney to accept their proposals. Robert Gnaizda, general counsel of the Greenlining Institute and lead counsel in over 100 class action court and administrative cases focusing on minority economic empowerment and civil rights, proposed that the group (“on behalf of 3.5 million Filipino Americans and 110 million minorities who are stereotyped and disparaged by the TV networks”) send letters to the CEOs of all the TV sponsors of Desperate Housewives to arrange personal meetings with them to discuss their sponsorships of Desperate Housewives.
The Filipino Anti-Defamation Coalition (FADC) called for a national boycott of all Disney Stores, asking our community, especially the 22,000 Filipino physicians in the US, to boycott Disney Stores during the upcoming holiday season and encourage their patients to do the same. The targeting of one company can be more effective than a generalized boycott of all Disney companies, and all Desperate Housewives’ sponsors, they said. [When asked why the Disney Stores, the answer was “because ABC issued a Mickey Mouse apology.”]
The National Alliance for Filipino Concerns (NAFCON), represented by Atty. Arnedo Valera, joined the call for a boycott denouncing ABC-Disney for giving “encouragement to the racial profiling of Filipinos.”
Two attorneys, Roman Mosqueda from Los Angeles, and Ted Laguatan from San Francisco, presented the case for filing a class action lawsuit against ABC. Both had mailed “retractory” letters to ABC within the 20 days required by statute in order to be able to obtain punitive damages in the event of litigation. Although both acknowledged the legal minefield (anti-Slapp and Blatty) that will face any actual lawsuit against ABC, they nonetheless urged the group to keep the legal option on the table as added pressure on ABC.
Mel Avanzado, a NaFFAA adviser and noted FilAm Entertainment Law specialist, said that litigation against ABC would be useless and counterproductive. But he also berated NaFFAA for being “unprepared” in its meeting with MacPherson. Accepting ABC’s offer to “develop an outreach brochure for ABC/Disney programs (funded by the company) specifically targeting the FilAm community, and to get the word out through NaFFAA about the Network’s various diversity programs” was not good enough. Had he been consulted by NaFFAA, Avanzado said he would have suggested a more productive strategy for the meeting.
Dr. Fred Quevedo, a representative of the Association of Practicing Physicians in America (APPA), disagreed with Avanzado's dour assessment and reported a more upbeat evaluation of the meeting with MacPherson which he attended at the invitation of NaFFAA.
In the Plenary Session/Open Forum that followed, various resolutions were adopted. The group unanimously approved a motion by Dr. Philip Chua to form a new national organization called the Filipino American Leadership Council (FALC) and unanimously elected Dr. Primo Andres, a cardiologist from Terre Haute, Indiana and president of the USTMAA Foundation, as its national president, with the Summit attendees as charter members. Dr. Philip Chua was elected national vice-president and Dr. Stella Evangelista as secretary.
The Council also voted to call for a national boycott of Disney Stores and to send letters to all the DH sponsors asking for a face-to-face meeting with them. The Council voted to table a motion on the litigation strategy and approved a resolution (by Faith Bautista of the Mabuhay Alliance) asking NaFFAA to defer to the Council in future negotiations with ABC.
Dr. Nora Rena from the Nevada Physicians Group and a vice-chair of NaFFAA for the Nevada Region captured the enthusiasm of the delegates when she said “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas except for what we resolved to do today.”
[At my request, the summit adjourned the conference in the memory of Dulce Quintans-Saguisag, sister of NaFFAA National Chair Alma Quintans-Kern. Dulce was killed in a roadside accident in the Philippines on November 6.]
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or directly to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800.
By Rodel Rodis
Posted date: November 13, 2007
All roads led to Las Vegas last November 10 for Filipino medical professionals and community leaders seeking a common strategy to pressure ABC-Disney to rectify the anti-Filipino slur that appeared in the season premier episode of Desperate Housewives’ on September 30.
Dubbed a “Summit Meeting of Fil-Am Leaders,” the conference at Caesar’s Palace was hosted by the UST Medical Alumni Association of America (USTMAAA) and organized by a core group composed of Dr. Stella Evangelista, Dr. Eustaquio Abay, Dr. Joe Evangelista, Dr. Primo Andres and Dr. Dante Gapultos. It drew 98 delegates representing at least 12 medical associations and community groups who presented their position statements.
Although ABC issued a public apology after more than 100,000 people signed an online petition demanding it, the delegates believed the apology to be insincere as it did not admit that a grievous mistake had been committed and that steps would be made to correct the mistake. As Dr. Nelson Bocar from Oklahoma City explained, “Without a meaningful apology and the correction of a slur, what ABC is offering still reeks not so much of ignorance now but of arrogance still.”
In her greetings to the delegates, Los Angeles Philippine Consul-General Mary Jo Aragon acknowledged that “many Filipino-American associations remain unconvinced and unsatisfied with the steps taken by ABC/Walt Disney Co. to rectify the situation.”
Rozita Lee, the Vice-Chair of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), expressed the NaFFAA view that “ABC acted in good faith by issuing the network’s apology immediately and promptly deleting the offensive remark” and by committing “to building a relationship with the Filipino American community that will open doors to Filipino talent.”
In a position statement entitled “Engaging Corporate Media” distributed to all the delegates, NaFFAA spokesman Jon Melegrito described his meetings with ABC, the last being on November 6 in Burbank, California, with Steve MacPherson, ABC President of Prime Time Entertainment, who admitted that the joke was “a terrible mistake” and assured NaFFAA that “such jokes would not happen again.”
Despite the fact that no commitment was extracted or offered by ABC about any apology on the air, which Melegrito believes to be an unrealistic goal, he nonetheless urged the Filipino community to “see the big picture” and accept what ABC has offered.
But the delegates would not be easily placated. Dr. Lee Llacer from the Philippine Medical Association in Washington DC reported that he attended a meeting of NaFFAA officers with ABC Vice President for Diversity Robert Mendez on October 9 to discus ABC’s initiatives. “I went to that meeting to talk about ABC kicking the dog,” Dr. Llacer said, “and I felt that everybody left the meeting getting what they wanted, except the dog.”
What the delegates felt was that a poisonous idea was disseminated to 25 million viewers that Philippine-educated physicians are inferior. What ABC agreed to do was delete the scene to stop this poison from being spread to future viewers of the episode. But what should be done to undo the subliminal damage caused by the airing of the “joke”? And how do we get ABC to do what's right?
The position statement of the host organization presented 4 proposals to ABC-Disney: air a sincere, genuine apology as soon as possible; involve ABC personnel in sensitivity training and cultural awareness; present TV medical shows that depict a true representation of the medical personnel in most hospitals; and recognize and acknowledge the positive impact and huge contributions of Filipino medical practitioners in the US.
The delegates then heard strategies to pressure ABC/Disney to accept their proposals. Robert Gnaizda, general counsel of the Greenlining Institute and lead counsel in over 100 class action court and administrative cases focusing on minority economic empowerment and civil rights, proposed that the group (“on behalf of 3.5 million Filipino Americans and 110 million minorities who are stereotyped and disparaged by the TV networks”) send letters to the CEOs of all the TV sponsors of Desperate Housewives to arrange personal meetings with them to discuss their sponsorships of Desperate Housewives.
The Filipino Anti-Defamation Coalition (FADC) called for a national boycott of all Disney Stores, asking our community, especially the 22,000 Filipino physicians in the US, to boycott Disney Stores during the upcoming holiday season and encourage their patients to do the same. The targeting of one company can be more effective than a generalized boycott of all Disney companies, and all Desperate Housewives’ sponsors, they said. [When asked why the Disney Stores, the answer was “because ABC issued a Mickey Mouse apology.”]
The National Alliance for Filipino Concerns (NAFCON), represented by Atty. Arnedo Valera, joined the call for a boycott denouncing ABC-Disney for giving “encouragement to the racial profiling of Filipinos.”
Two attorneys, Roman Mosqueda from Los Angeles, and Ted Laguatan from San Francisco, presented the case for filing a class action lawsuit against ABC. Both had mailed “retractory” letters to ABC within the 20 days required by statute in order to be able to obtain punitive damages in the event of litigation. Although both acknowledged the legal minefield (anti-Slapp and Blatty) that will face any actual lawsuit against ABC, they nonetheless urged the group to keep the legal option on the table as added pressure on ABC.
Mel Avanzado, a NaFFAA adviser and noted FilAm Entertainment Law specialist, said that litigation against ABC would be useless and counterproductive. But he also berated NaFFAA for being “unprepared” in its meeting with MacPherson. Accepting ABC’s offer to “develop an outreach brochure for ABC/Disney programs (funded by the company) specifically targeting the FilAm community, and to get the word out through NaFFAA about the Network’s various diversity programs” was not good enough. Had he been consulted by NaFFAA, Avanzado said he would have suggested a more productive strategy for the meeting.
Dr. Fred Quevedo, a representative of the Association of Practicing Physicians in America (APPA), disagreed with Avanzado's dour assessment and reported a more upbeat evaluation of the meeting with MacPherson which he attended at the invitation of NaFFAA.
In the Plenary Session/Open Forum that followed, various resolutions were adopted. The group unanimously approved a motion by Dr. Philip Chua to form a new national organization called the Filipino American Leadership Council (FALC) and unanimously elected Dr. Primo Andres, a cardiologist from Terre Haute, Indiana and president of the USTMAA Foundation, as its national president, with the Summit attendees as charter members. Dr. Philip Chua was elected national vice-president and Dr. Stella Evangelista as secretary.
The Council also voted to call for a national boycott of Disney Stores and to send letters to all the DH sponsors asking for a face-to-face meeting with them. The Council voted to table a motion on the litigation strategy and approved a resolution (by Faith Bautista of the Mabuhay Alliance) asking NaFFAA to defer to the Council in future negotiations with ABC.
Dr. Nora Rena from the Nevada Physicians Group and a vice-chair of NaFFAA for the Nevada Region captured the enthusiasm of the delegates when she said “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas except for what we resolved to do today.”
[At my request, the summit adjourned the conference in the memory of Dulce Quintans-Saguisag, sister of NaFFAA National Chair Alma Quintans-Kern. Dulce was killed in a roadside accident in the Philippines on November 6.]
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or directly to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Filipino role models
Filipino role models
Rodel Rodis, Jan 16, 2007
We all need role models, people who blaze trails for us, who inspire us to achieve more and do more with our lives, and who provide us with the confidence to get to where we want to go.
Filipinos who have professional aspirations look to the examples of those who came before them to draw inspiration from on how they dealt with adversity, and how they overcame whatever obstacles stood in their way to achieve success in their fields.
It must have been very difficult for Eleanor Oducayen when she attended the prestigious Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California in Berkeley in 1969. There were no other Pinays in her class; in fact, there had never been one at Boalt Hall. In point of fact, before Eleanor, there had never ever been a Pinay at any law school in California, or perhaps in all of the United States. Eleanor had no Pinay role models to look up to in law. She was it.
When she graduated from law school and passed the bar in 1972, she was quickly hired as a Deputy Attorney General in the California Attorney General’s Office in Sacramento, probably the first Filipino to hold that post, certainly the first Pinay.
There were 32 Deputy Attorney Generals in her office, of which 30 were males, almost all were Caucasian. She quickly ascended the ranks and was appointed Administrative Law Judge to handle unemployment insurance cases. She rose to become Chief Judge in her department. By then, breaking glass ceilings and being the first was nothing new to Eleanor.
In 1981, when there was enough of a critical mass of Filipino attorneys in Northern California, Eleanor and a dozen of us organized the Filipino Bar Association of Northern California (FBANC). Although virtually all of us were men, there was no question that the one most qualified to lead us to become a professional organization was Eleanor. FBANC has had 26 presidents since then but Eleanor was the first.
After 35 years of working for the state of California, Eleanor quietly retired last week and was set to celebrate her retirement with her husband and her kids, all grown up, by going out to dinner all they way in San Francisco from their home in Oakland. On the way, they stopped by a friend’s retirement party in Oakland’s Chinatown.
It was not a friend’s retirement party, it was hers. A genuine surprise to Eleanor who saw all her family members, her fellow judges and old colleagues from the Attorney General’s office, some of whom flew in from Los Angeles, her FBANC and community friends all had been waiting to shower her with warmth and affection in a testimonial roast.
The surprise party was planned by Eleanor’s husband of 35 years, Mike Nisperos, whose role model was his wife. After graduating from high school in Oakland in 1968, Mike enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and served two tours of duty in Vietnam. After completing his tour and finishing as a Master Sergeant, Mike returned to Oakland in 1971, where he met Eleanor, who was graduating from law school. After a brief courtship, Mike and Eleanor married and Mike went to college on his G.I. Bill, graduating from UC Berkeley in 1975 and then, following Eleanor’s lead, going on to Boalt Hall as well, graduating in 1978.
After working in the Oakland District Attorney’s Office as a Deputy DA, Mike worked in the Judge Advocate General’s Office from 1982-88 and then as an attorney in the then U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). In 1991, he was appointed “drug czar” of Oakland, as Director of the Mayor’s Office of Drugs and Crime, where he coordinated the enforcement, prevention and education efforts directed toward the reduction of crime and drug abuse. In 2001, Mike was appointed Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California overseeing the bar’s attorney discipline system over the state’s 175,000 attorneys.
Mike was recently appointed Deputy Attorney General for the Marianas Islands to serve in Saipan, where he will be joined by his wife. They have two kids, Marlo, a Deputy District Attorney in Sonoma County, and Mike Jr., a law student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.
A role model is one who is compassionate and feels obligated to better “society” and work for the common good of the community; has developed powerful and effective habits of the mind and soul; can work through challenges and is committed to what he or she does; has the capacity to achieve goals and obtain self-fulfillment; possesses high standards and values; and is admired for courage and strength.
By all these standards, Eleanor Oducayen Nisperos fully fits the bill of a positive role model. And so does her husband, Mike. We wish them well in their new adventure in Saipan and we thank them both for lighting the path for the rest of us to follow. Godspeed.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
Rodel Rodis, Jan 16, 2007
We all need role models, people who blaze trails for us, who inspire us to achieve more and do more with our lives, and who provide us with the confidence to get to where we want to go.
Filipinos who have professional aspirations look to the examples of those who came before them to draw inspiration from on how they dealt with adversity, and how they overcame whatever obstacles stood in their way to achieve success in their fields.
It must have been very difficult for Eleanor Oducayen when she attended the prestigious Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California in Berkeley in 1969. There were no other Pinays in her class; in fact, there had never been one at Boalt Hall. In point of fact, before Eleanor, there had never ever been a Pinay at any law school in California, or perhaps in all of the United States. Eleanor had no Pinay role models to look up to in law. She was it.
When she graduated from law school and passed the bar in 1972, she was quickly hired as a Deputy Attorney General in the California Attorney General’s Office in Sacramento, probably the first Filipino to hold that post, certainly the first Pinay.
There were 32 Deputy Attorney Generals in her office, of which 30 were males, almost all were Caucasian. She quickly ascended the ranks and was appointed Administrative Law Judge to handle unemployment insurance cases. She rose to become Chief Judge in her department. By then, breaking glass ceilings and being the first was nothing new to Eleanor.
In 1981, when there was enough of a critical mass of Filipino attorneys in Northern California, Eleanor and a dozen of us organized the Filipino Bar Association of Northern California (FBANC). Although virtually all of us were men, there was no question that the one most qualified to lead us to become a professional organization was Eleanor. FBANC has had 26 presidents since then but Eleanor was the first.
After 35 years of working for the state of California, Eleanor quietly retired last week and was set to celebrate her retirement with her husband and her kids, all grown up, by going out to dinner all they way in San Francisco from their home in Oakland. On the way, they stopped by a friend’s retirement party in Oakland’s Chinatown.
It was not a friend’s retirement party, it was hers. A genuine surprise to Eleanor who saw all her family members, her fellow judges and old colleagues from the Attorney General’s office, some of whom flew in from Los Angeles, her FBANC and community friends all had been waiting to shower her with warmth and affection in a testimonial roast.
The surprise party was planned by Eleanor’s husband of 35 years, Mike Nisperos, whose role model was his wife. After graduating from high school in Oakland in 1968, Mike enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and served two tours of duty in Vietnam. After completing his tour and finishing as a Master Sergeant, Mike returned to Oakland in 1971, where he met Eleanor, who was graduating from law school. After a brief courtship, Mike and Eleanor married and Mike went to college on his G.I. Bill, graduating from UC Berkeley in 1975 and then, following Eleanor’s lead, going on to Boalt Hall as well, graduating in 1978.
After working in the Oakland District Attorney’s Office as a Deputy DA, Mike worked in the Judge Advocate General’s Office from 1982-88 and then as an attorney in the then U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). In 1991, he was appointed “drug czar” of Oakland, as Director of the Mayor’s Office of Drugs and Crime, where he coordinated the enforcement, prevention and education efforts directed toward the reduction of crime and drug abuse. In 2001, Mike was appointed Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California overseeing the bar’s attorney discipline system over the state’s 175,000 attorneys.
Mike was recently appointed Deputy Attorney General for the Marianas Islands to serve in Saipan, where he will be joined by his wife. They have two kids, Marlo, a Deputy District Attorney in Sonoma County, and Mike Jr., a law student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.
A role model is one who is compassionate and feels obligated to better “society” and work for the common good of the community; has developed powerful and effective habits of the mind and soul; can work through challenges and is committed to what he or she does; has the capacity to achieve goals and obtain self-fulfillment; possesses high standards and values; and is admired for courage and strength.
By all these standards, Eleanor Oducayen Nisperos fully fits the bill of a positive role model. And so does her husband, Mike. We wish them well in their new adventure in Saipan and we thank them both for lighting the path for the rest of us to follow. Godspeed.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
The final battle for equity
The final battle for equity
Rodel Rodis, Feb 27, 2007
WASHINGTON D.C. - The Filipino Veterans Equity bill finally got its long-overdue hearing in the House Veterans Affairs Committee, fittingly on the very eve of the 61st anniversary of the day the U.S. Congress passed the infamous Rescission Act, excluding Filipino WW II veterans of the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East (Usaffe) from receiving U.S. military benefits.
At the February 15 committee hearing chaired by Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), 15 witnesses testified in support of the equity bill that will provide approximately 20,000 surviving Filipino WW II veterans with a monthly U.S. military disability pension.
Among those who testified at the hearing were Franco Arcebal, 83, a former Philippine guerrilla intelligence officer in WWII who serves as vice-president of the American Coalition for the Filipino Veterans (ACFV), and Alma Quintans Kern, chair of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), which initiated the formation of the 20-organization National Alliance for Filipino Veterans Equity (Nafve) last December 7.
As the newly-appointed veterans affairs committee chair, Rep. Filner has fast-tracked his Filipino Veterans Equity bill, holding the hearing just two weeks after re-filing it as HR 760 on January 31, with Republican Congressman Darrell Issa (California) among the co-sponsors.
“We’re going to try to take this up in committee within a few weeks,” Rep. Filner said, “and I would like to take it on the floor (for a vote) before Bataan Day (April 9).”
At the hearing, Rep. John Boozman (R-Arkansas) raised the question of whether the U.S. could afford to pay the full $880 maximum veterans monthly pension given to poor veterans with non-service related disability who served a minimum of 90 days in the U.S. military during a wartime period.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Florida) supported the 2006 proposal of Rep. Lane Evans (D-Illinois) allocating a $200 monthly pension for veterans in the Philippines which he said was “reasonable” given the cost of living in the Philippines and the fiscal constraints caused by the U.S. deficit and the growing expense of the Iraq war.
Whether the Filipino veterans should accept anything less than the maximum amount to which they are entitled has been a source of contention among the various veterans support groups in the past. Some have maintained that the veterans should accept nothing less than what they are entitled to while others support a more practical approach that would result in the veterans receiving money now while they are still alive to enjoy the pension. All the groups agree, however, that the issue now is passage of the veterans equity bill and that the issue of the amount of the pension should be determined later in the appropriations committees of the Congress.
Philippine Embassy Deputy Chief of Mission Carlos D. Sorreta informed the veterans affairs committee that there are only 20,000 WW II veterans still alive today from the 472,000 vets who originally served under the Usaffe. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) provided a higher figure of 22,000 with about 15,000 in the Philippines and 7,000 in the U.S.
Sorreta passionately urged the committee to pass the bill “on behalf of a nation that has stood by yours in the name of liberty and freedom in World War II, in the uncertain decades after, and in facing today’s new and grave challenges.”
House approval of the equity bill will provide momentum for its Senate counterpart sponsored by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) who refiled the bill as S 57 when the 110th U.S. Congress opened on January 4. Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), the new chairman of the committee on veterans affairs, promised a Senate hearing in April.
“We will get it in and we will get it passed this year,” Sen. Inouye vowed.
Sen. Akaka also reintroduced his Filipino Veterans Family Reunification bill which would exempt children of Filipino WW II veterans from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas.
“The bill seeks to reunite the naturalized Filipino veterans with their sons and daughters, many of whom have been on the immigration waiting lists for years, by exempting the veterans’ adult children from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas,” explained Sen. Akaka.
In the 109th Congress last year, Akaka’s bill, as an amendment to the Omnibus Immigration Reform Bill, passed the Senate with a vote of 99-0 last year. The Omnibus bill was not enacted into law, however, because the House and Senate could not agree on a compromise bill.
Before the Thursday house committee hearing, I joined members of the American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, led by ret. Maj. General Antonio Taguba (author of the Abu Ghraib report), as we visited the House offices of veterans affairs committee members to thank them for their support of the equity and reunification bills and to give them Valentine’s Day roses.
It has been 61 years of struggle for the Filipino WW II veterans to rescind the Rescission Act. The dwindling number of surviving veterans hope that the equity bill will finally pass the US Congress this year.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
Rodel Rodis, Feb 27, 2007
WASHINGTON D.C. - The Filipino Veterans Equity bill finally got its long-overdue hearing in the House Veterans Affairs Committee, fittingly on the very eve of the 61st anniversary of the day the U.S. Congress passed the infamous Rescission Act, excluding Filipino WW II veterans of the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East (Usaffe) from receiving U.S. military benefits.
At the February 15 committee hearing chaired by Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), 15 witnesses testified in support of the equity bill that will provide approximately 20,000 surviving Filipino WW II veterans with a monthly U.S. military disability pension.
Among those who testified at the hearing were Franco Arcebal, 83, a former Philippine guerrilla intelligence officer in WWII who serves as vice-president of the American Coalition for the Filipino Veterans (ACFV), and Alma Quintans Kern, chair of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), which initiated the formation of the 20-organization National Alliance for Filipino Veterans Equity (Nafve) last December 7.
As the newly-appointed veterans affairs committee chair, Rep. Filner has fast-tracked his Filipino Veterans Equity bill, holding the hearing just two weeks after re-filing it as HR 760 on January 31, with Republican Congressman Darrell Issa (California) among the co-sponsors.
“We’re going to try to take this up in committee within a few weeks,” Rep. Filner said, “and I would like to take it on the floor (for a vote) before Bataan Day (April 9).”
At the hearing, Rep. John Boozman (R-Arkansas) raised the question of whether the U.S. could afford to pay the full $880 maximum veterans monthly pension given to poor veterans with non-service related disability who served a minimum of 90 days in the U.S. military during a wartime period.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Florida) supported the 2006 proposal of Rep. Lane Evans (D-Illinois) allocating a $200 monthly pension for veterans in the Philippines which he said was “reasonable” given the cost of living in the Philippines and the fiscal constraints caused by the U.S. deficit and the growing expense of the Iraq war.
Whether the Filipino veterans should accept anything less than the maximum amount to which they are entitled has been a source of contention among the various veterans support groups in the past. Some have maintained that the veterans should accept nothing less than what they are entitled to while others support a more practical approach that would result in the veterans receiving money now while they are still alive to enjoy the pension. All the groups agree, however, that the issue now is passage of the veterans equity bill and that the issue of the amount of the pension should be determined later in the appropriations committees of the Congress.
Philippine Embassy Deputy Chief of Mission Carlos D. Sorreta informed the veterans affairs committee that there are only 20,000 WW II veterans still alive today from the 472,000 vets who originally served under the Usaffe. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) provided a higher figure of 22,000 with about 15,000 in the Philippines and 7,000 in the U.S.
Sorreta passionately urged the committee to pass the bill “on behalf of a nation that has stood by yours in the name of liberty and freedom in World War II, in the uncertain decades after, and in facing today’s new and grave challenges.”
House approval of the equity bill will provide momentum for its Senate counterpart sponsored by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) who refiled the bill as S 57 when the 110th U.S. Congress opened on January 4. Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), the new chairman of the committee on veterans affairs, promised a Senate hearing in April.
“We will get it in and we will get it passed this year,” Sen. Inouye vowed.
Sen. Akaka also reintroduced his Filipino Veterans Family Reunification bill which would exempt children of Filipino WW II veterans from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas.
“The bill seeks to reunite the naturalized Filipino veterans with their sons and daughters, many of whom have been on the immigration waiting lists for years, by exempting the veterans’ adult children from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas,” explained Sen. Akaka.
In the 109th Congress last year, Akaka’s bill, as an amendment to the Omnibus Immigration Reform Bill, passed the Senate with a vote of 99-0 last year. The Omnibus bill was not enacted into law, however, because the House and Senate could not agree on a compromise bill.
Before the Thursday house committee hearing, I joined members of the American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, led by ret. Maj. General Antonio Taguba (author of the Abu Ghraib report), as we visited the House offices of veterans affairs committee members to thank them for their support of the equity and reunification bills and to give them Valentine’s Day roses.
It has been 61 years of struggle for the Filipino WW II veterans to rescind the Rescission Act. The dwindling number of surviving veterans hope that the equity bill will finally pass the US Congress this year.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
Four years of shock and awe
Four years of shock and awe
Rodel Rodis, Mar 21, 2007
This week’s 4th anniversary of America’s “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq reminded me of a family dinner we had more than four years ago when our family discussed whether to join an anti-war rally to protest the impending war. Our three young boys told us that they had been discussing the war in school all week and that everyone, teachers and students, were opposed to it. “Of course we’ll all go,” they said.
So off we went the next day to join the February 16, 2003 rally at the Civic Center in San Francisco. The newspapers estimated that there were 200,000 people who marched in that rally to denounce President George W. Bush’s plans to invade Iraq. Whole families just like us were there to show their opposition to the war. There were babies in strollers, pushed by their moms and dads and old folks on canes.
When my father-in-law, Romulo Austria, learned that we had attended the rally, he was upset. “Why didn’t you tell me? I would have joined you,” he said. This proud man, who was a young guerilla during the war against the Japanese, who enrolled in the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) after the war, who obtained a PhD in Engineering at the University of Rome in 1958, who worked for Bechtel as a nuclear engineer, who had been a Republican, was early on dead set against the war.
“Bush is crazy,” he told us. “It’s a lie. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush is just using this excuse to fool the people,” he said with firm conviction.
Papa, as I call him, turns 80 this week on Thursday, still firm in his conviction now as he was back then that the war in Iraq is sheer madness.
If Bush had listened to my father-in-law back then, there would be more than 3,200 American soldiers and more than 150,000 Iraqis still alive today. We would not have close to 30,000 American soldiers in veterans hospitals like Walter Reed struggling with inadequate health care. And we have more than $600 billion to spend on education, health care and housing for the American people. And money to fully fund the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill.
But why should Bush listen to my father-in-law when he wouldn’t even listen to his own father? In his book, “A World Transformed,” coauthored with his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and published in 1998, former President George H. Bush explained that if he pursued the retreating Iraqi Army back to Baghdad in 1992, the United States “would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.” That would have collapsed the international coalition and alienated the Arab members to desert the coalition. “There was no viable ‘exit strategy’... violating another of our principles,” they said.
“Furthermore,” they wrote, “[had] we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome.”
In an article published in the Wall Street Journal on August 15, 2002, Scowcroft pointed out that an invasion of Iraq “was certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack.” Invasion of Iraq would require the United States “to pursue a virtual go-it- alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive ... [and] very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.” Such actions would result in a “degradation” of international cooperation, and an “explosion of outrage against us” especially in the Muslim world. Such a policy “could even swell the ranks of terrorists.”
These points seem so obvious now in 20-20 hindsight but they were obvious to my kids and to my father-in-law even back then.
When asked why he didn’t listen to the advice of his father and his father’s national security adviser, Bush told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that it was because he listens to a “higher father”. So that was his reason, God told Bush to invade Iraq just as Allah told Osama bin Laden to destroy the World Trade Center.
There was a large contingent of Filipinos at the February 16, 2003 anti-war rally we attended. The San Francisco Chronicle took note of this in its next day coverage of the rally. In the front page article (“Anti-war movement galvanizing minorities”, February 17, 2003), the Chronicle reported: “In the 400,000-strong (Bay Area) Filipino community, many have friends or family members working in the Middle East as maids and construction workers, said Rhonda Ramiro, a San Francisco resident. An estimated 1.5 million Filipinos are employed in such jobs there.”
Four years later, President Bush submits as a “benchmark” for measuring Iraqi progress whether the Iraqi Parliament will pass the Iraqi Oil Law that would allow U.S. multinational oil companies to take over Iraqi oil (“Whose Oil is it Anyway?” Antonia Juhasz, Washington Post). My son’s T-shirt was right on the mark.
“They hate us because we value freedom” Bush says again and again. We value freedom? In the last six years, Bush has eliminated many of the rights and freedoms Americans hold sacred - right to privacy, free speech, right against search and seizure, right to habeas corpus. The only right that hasn’t been touched by the Bush Administration, so far, is the second amendment right to bear arms.
What freedom is valued? Halliburton, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s company and the U.S. multi-national corporation that profited from the Iraq War, has the freedom to move its operations from Houston, Texas to Dhubai.
Happy 80th birthday, Papa.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com. I welcome comments even from die-hard FilAm Republicans who regularly criticize PhilNews editor Lito Gutierrez whenever he writes anything against Bush’s Iraq War. As their hero Bush said, Bring it on!
Rodel Rodis, Mar 21, 2007
This week’s 4th anniversary of America’s “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq reminded me of a family dinner we had more than four years ago when our family discussed whether to join an anti-war rally to protest the impending war. Our three young boys told us that they had been discussing the war in school all week and that everyone, teachers and students, were opposed to it. “Of course we’ll all go,” they said.
So off we went the next day to join the February 16, 2003 rally at the Civic Center in San Francisco. The newspapers estimated that there were 200,000 people who marched in that rally to denounce President George W. Bush’s plans to invade Iraq. Whole families just like us were there to show their opposition to the war. There were babies in strollers, pushed by their moms and dads and old folks on canes.
When my father-in-law, Romulo Austria, learned that we had attended the rally, he was upset. “Why didn’t you tell me? I would have joined you,” he said. This proud man, who was a young guerilla during the war against the Japanese, who enrolled in the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) after the war, who obtained a PhD in Engineering at the University of Rome in 1958, who worked for Bechtel as a nuclear engineer, who had been a Republican, was early on dead set against the war.
“Bush is crazy,” he told us. “It’s a lie. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush is just using this excuse to fool the people,” he said with firm conviction.
Papa, as I call him, turns 80 this week on Thursday, still firm in his conviction now as he was back then that the war in Iraq is sheer madness.
If Bush had listened to my father-in-law back then, there would be more than 3,200 American soldiers and more than 150,000 Iraqis still alive today. We would not have close to 30,000 American soldiers in veterans hospitals like Walter Reed struggling with inadequate health care. And we have more than $600 billion to spend on education, health care and housing for the American people. And money to fully fund the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill.
But why should Bush listen to my father-in-law when he wouldn’t even listen to his own father? In his book, “A World Transformed,” coauthored with his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and published in 1998, former President George H. Bush explained that if he pursued the retreating Iraqi Army back to Baghdad in 1992, the United States “would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.” That would have collapsed the international coalition and alienated the Arab members to desert the coalition. “There was no viable ‘exit strategy’... violating another of our principles,” they said.
“Furthermore,” they wrote, “[had] we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome.”
In an article published in the Wall Street Journal on August 15, 2002, Scowcroft pointed out that an invasion of Iraq “was certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack.” Invasion of Iraq would require the United States “to pursue a virtual go-it- alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive ... [and] very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.” Such actions would result in a “degradation” of international cooperation, and an “explosion of outrage against us” especially in the Muslim world. Such a policy “could even swell the ranks of terrorists.”
These points seem so obvious now in 20-20 hindsight but they were obvious to my kids and to my father-in-law even back then.
When asked why he didn’t listen to the advice of his father and his father’s national security adviser, Bush told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that it was because he listens to a “higher father”. So that was his reason, God told Bush to invade Iraq just as Allah told Osama bin Laden to destroy the World Trade Center.
There was a large contingent of Filipinos at the February 16, 2003 anti-war rally we attended. The San Francisco Chronicle took note of this in its next day coverage of the rally. In the front page article (“Anti-war movement galvanizing minorities”, February 17, 2003), the Chronicle reported: “In the 400,000-strong (Bay Area) Filipino community, many have friends or family members working in the Middle East as maids and construction workers, said Rhonda Ramiro, a San Francisco resident. An estimated 1.5 million Filipinos are employed in such jobs there.”
Four years later, President Bush submits as a “benchmark” for measuring Iraqi progress whether the Iraqi Parliament will pass the Iraqi Oil Law that would allow U.S. multinational oil companies to take over Iraqi oil (“Whose Oil is it Anyway?” Antonia Juhasz, Washington Post). My son’s T-shirt was right on the mark.
“They hate us because we value freedom” Bush says again and again. We value freedom? In the last six years, Bush has eliminated many of the rights and freedoms Americans hold sacred - right to privacy, free speech, right against search and seizure, right to habeas corpus. The only right that hasn’t been touched by the Bush Administration, so far, is the second amendment right to bear arms.
What freedom is valued? Halliburton, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s company and the U.S. multi-national corporation that profited from the Iraq War, has the freedom to move its operations from Houston, Texas to Dhubai.
Happy 80th birthday, Papa.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com. I welcome comments even from die-hard FilAm Republicans who regularly criticize PhilNews editor Lito Gutierrez whenever he writes anything against Bush’s Iraq War. As their hero Bush said, Bring it on!
Four years of shock and awe
Four years of shock and awe
Rodel Rodis, Mar 21, 2007
This week’s 4th anniversary of America’s “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq reminded me of a family dinner we had more than four years ago when our family discussed whether to join an anti-war rally to protest the impending war. Our three young boys told us that they had been discussing the war in school all week and that everyone, teachers and students, were opposed to it. “Of course we’ll all go,” they said.
So off we went the next day to join the February 16, 2003 rally at the Civic Center in San Francisco. The newspapers estimated that there were 200,000 people who marched in that rally to denounce President George W. Bush’s plans to invade Iraq. Whole families just like us were there to show their opposition to the war. There were babies in strollers, pushed by their moms and dads and old folks on canes.
When my father-in-law, Romulo Austria, learned that we had attended the rally, he was upset. “Why didn’t you tell me? I would have joined you,” he said. This proud man, who was a young guerilla during the war against the Japanese, who enrolled in the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) after the war, who obtained a PhD in Engineering at the University of Rome in 1958, who worked for Bechtel as a nuclear engineer, who had been a Republican, was early on dead set against the war.
“Bush is crazy,” he told us. “It’s a lie. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush is just using this excuse to fool the people,” he said with firm conviction.
Papa, as I call him, turns 80 this week on Thursday, still firm in his conviction now as he was back then that the war in Iraq is sheer madness.
If Bush had listened to my father-in-law back then, there would be more than 3,200 American soldiers and more than 150,000 Iraqis still alive today. We would not have close to 30,000 American soldiers in veterans hospitals like Walter Reed struggling with inadequate health care. And we have more than $600 billion to spend on education, health care and housing for the American people. And money to fully fund the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill.
But why should Bush listen to my father-in-law when he wouldn’t even listen to his own father? In his book, “A World Transformed,” coauthored with his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and published in 1998, former President George H. Bush explained that if he pursued the retreating Iraqi Army back to Baghdad in 1992, the United States “would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.” That would have collapsed the international coalition and alienated the Arab members to desert the coalition. “There was no viable ‘exit strategy’... violating another of our principles,” they said.
“Furthermore,” they wrote, “[had] we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome.”
In an article published in the Wall Street Journal on August 15, 2002, Scowcroft pointed out that an invasion of Iraq “was certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack.” Invasion of Iraq would require the United States “to pursue a virtual go-it- alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive ... [and] very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.” Such actions would result in a “degradation” of international cooperation, and an “explosion of outrage against us” especially in the Muslim world. Such a policy “could even swell the ranks of terrorists.”
These points seem so obvious now in 20-20 hindsight but they were obvious to my kids and to my father-in-law even back then.
When asked why he didn’t listen to the advice of his father and his father’s national security adviser, Bush told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that it was because he listens to a “higher father”. So that was his reason, God told Bush to invade Iraq just as Allah told Osama bin Laden to destroy the World Trade Center.
There was a large contingent of Filipinos at the February 16, 2003 anti-war rally we attended. The San Francisco Chronicle took note of this in its next day coverage of the rally. In the front page article (“Anti-war movement galvanizing minorities”, February 17, 2003), the Chronicle reported: “In the 400,000-strong (Bay Area) Filipino community, many have friends or family members working in the Middle East as maids and construction workers, said Rhonda Ramiro, a San Francisco resident. An estimated 1.5 million Filipinos are employed in such jobs there.”
Four years later, President Bush submits as a “benchmark” for measuring Iraqi progress whether the Iraqi Parliament will pass the Iraqi Oil Law that would allow U.S. multinational oil companies to take over Iraqi oil (“Whose Oil is it Anyway?” Antonia Juhasz, Washington Post). My son’s T-shirt was right on the mark.
“They hate us because we value freedom” Bush says again and again. We value freedom? In the last six years, Bush has eliminated many of the rights and freedoms Americans hold sacred - right to privacy, free speech, right against search and seizure, right to habeas corpus. The only right that hasn’t been touched by the Bush Administration, so far, is the second amendment right to bear arms.
What freedom is valued? Halliburton, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s company and the U.S. multi-national corporation that profited from the Iraq War, has the freedom to move its operations from Houston, Texas to Dhubai.
Happy 80th birthday, Papa.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com. I welcome comments even from die-hard FilAm Republicans who regularly criticize PhilNews editor Lito Gutierrez whenever he writes anything against Bush’s Iraq War. As their hero Bush said, Bring it on!
Rodel Rodis, Mar 21, 2007
This week’s 4th anniversary of America’s “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq reminded me of a family dinner we had more than four years ago when our family discussed whether to join an anti-war rally to protest the impending war. Our three young boys told us that they had been discussing the war in school all week and that everyone, teachers and students, were opposed to it. “Of course we’ll all go,” they said.
So off we went the next day to join the February 16, 2003 rally at the Civic Center in San Francisco. The newspapers estimated that there were 200,000 people who marched in that rally to denounce President George W. Bush’s plans to invade Iraq. Whole families just like us were there to show their opposition to the war. There were babies in strollers, pushed by their moms and dads and old folks on canes.
When my father-in-law, Romulo Austria, learned that we had attended the rally, he was upset. “Why didn’t you tell me? I would have joined you,” he said. This proud man, who was a young guerilla during the war against the Japanese, who enrolled in the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) after the war, who obtained a PhD in Engineering at the University of Rome in 1958, who worked for Bechtel as a nuclear engineer, who had been a Republican, was early on dead set against the war.
“Bush is crazy,” he told us. “It’s a lie. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush is just using this excuse to fool the people,” he said with firm conviction.
Papa, as I call him, turns 80 this week on Thursday, still firm in his conviction now as he was back then that the war in Iraq is sheer madness.
If Bush had listened to my father-in-law back then, there would be more than 3,200 American soldiers and more than 150,000 Iraqis still alive today. We would not have close to 30,000 American soldiers in veterans hospitals like Walter Reed struggling with inadequate health care. And we have more than $600 billion to spend on education, health care and housing for the American people. And money to fully fund the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill.
But why should Bush listen to my father-in-law when he wouldn’t even listen to his own father? In his book, “A World Transformed,” coauthored with his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and published in 1998, former President George H. Bush explained that if he pursued the retreating Iraqi Army back to Baghdad in 1992, the United States “would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.” That would have collapsed the international coalition and alienated the Arab members to desert the coalition. “There was no viable ‘exit strategy’... violating another of our principles,” they said.
“Furthermore,” they wrote, “[had] we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome.”
In an article published in the Wall Street Journal on August 15, 2002, Scowcroft pointed out that an invasion of Iraq “was certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack.” Invasion of Iraq would require the United States “to pursue a virtual go-it- alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive ... [and] very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.” Such actions would result in a “degradation” of international cooperation, and an “explosion of outrage against us” especially in the Muslim world. Such a policy “could even swell the ranks of terrorists.”
These points seem so obvious now in 20-20 hindsight but they were obvious to my kids and to my father-in-law even back then.
When asked why he didn’t listen to the advice of his father and his father’s national security adviser, Bush told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that it was because he listens to a “higher father”. So that was his reason, God told Bush to invade Iraq just as Allah told Osama bin Laden to destroy the World Trade Center.
There was a large contingent of Filipinos at the February 16, 2003 anti-war rally we attended. The San Francisco Chronicle took note of this in its next day coverage of the rally. In the front page article (“Anti-war movement galvanizing minorities”, February 17, 2003), the Chronicle reported: “In the 400,000-strong (Bay Area) Filipino community, many have friends or family members working in the Middle East as maids and construction workers, said Rhonda Ramiro, a San Francisco resident. An estimated 1.5 million Filipinos are employed in such jobs there.”
Four years later, President Bush submits as a “benchmark” for measuring Iraqi progress whether the Iraqi Parliament will pass the Iraqi Oil Law that would allow U.S. multinational oil companies to take over Iraqi oil (“Whose Oil is it Anyway?” Antonia Juhasz, Washington Post). My son’s T-shirt was right on the mark.
“They hate us because we value freedom” Bush says again and again. We value freedom? In the last six years, Bush has eliminated many of the rights and freedoms Americans hold sacred - right to privacy, free speech, right against search and seizure, right to habeas corpus. The only right that hasn’t been touched by the Bush Administration, so far, is the second amendment right to bear arms.
What freedom is valued? Halliburton, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s company and the U.S. multi-national corporation that profited from the Iraq War, has the freedom to move its operations from Houston, Texas to Dhubai.
Happy 80th birthday, Papa.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com. I welcome comments even from die-hard FilAm Republicans who regularly criticize PhilNews editor Lito Gutierrez whenever he writes anything against Bush’s Iraq War. As their hero Bush said, Bring it on!
Vonnegut reading Mark Twain
Vonnegut reading Mark Twain
Rodel Rodis, Apr 18, 2007
Kurt Vonnegut, one of my favorite authors, was 84 when he died last week. The best selling author of “Slaughterhouse-Five”, “Cat’s Cradle” and 17 other novels was a vocal critic of the Bush administration. Of the 3200 American soldiers who have died in that war, Vonnegut wrote that they are being treated “like toys a rich kid got for Christmas.”
In February of 2003, just as George W. Bush was preparing to launch his invasion of Iraq, Vonnegut participated in a reading of Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove’s book, “Voices of a People’s History of the United States.” Vonnegut chose to read Mark Twain’s response to President Theodore Roosevelt’s congratulating U.S. Commanding General (later Philippine Governor-General) Leonard Wood for his military victory in 1906 against the Moros in the Philippines. It was a prescient choice because the impending invasion of Iraq was eerily similar to the U.S. invasion of the Philippines in 1899, especially in the Muslim south.
President Theodore Roosevelt declared a similar “Mission Accomplished” on July 4, 1902 to declare an end to the hostilities in the Philippines. But it was far from over, especially in Muslim Mindanao where the Moros continued to resist U.S. rule as they had successfully repulsed Spanish attempts at colonial subjugation.
In the Battle of Bud Dajo, which took place March 10, 1906, in the island of Sulu in the southern Philippines, forces of the U.S. Army under the command of Major General Leonard Wood, a naval detachment comprising of 540 U.S. soldiers attacked a village hidden in the crater of the dormant volcano Bud Dajo. No American soldiers were killed in the “battle” although the initial reports showed that 16 were killed when they were just wounded. More than 600 mostly unarmed Muslim villagers were slaughtered, but none wounded.
Kurt Vonnegut reading Mark Twain: “This incident burst upon the world last Friday in an official cablegram from the commander of our forces in the Philippines to our Government at Washington. The substance of it was as follows:
A tribe of Moros, dark-skinned savages, had fortified themselves inthe bowl of an extinct crater not many miles from Jolo; and as they were hostiles, and bitter against us because we have been trying foreight years to take their liberties away from them, their presence in that position was a menace. Our commander, Gen. Leonard Wood, ordered a reconnaissance. It was found that the Moros numbered six hundred,counting women and children; that their crater bowl was in the summit of a peak or mountain twenty-two hundred feet above sea level, andvery difficult of access for Christian troops and artillery. Then General Wood ordered a surprise, and went along himself to see theorder carried out.
Gen. Wood’s order was, “Kill or capture the six hundred.”
There, with six hundred engaged on each side, we lost fifteen men killed outright, and we had thirty-two wounded-counting that nose and that elbow. The enemy numbered six hundred -- including women and children -- and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States.
So far as I can find out, there was only one person among our eighty millions who allowed himself the privilege of a public remark on this great occasion -- that was the President of the United States. All day Friday he was as studiously silent as the rest. But on Saturday he recognized that his duty required him to say something, and he took his pen and performed that duty. This is what he said: Washington, March 10. Wood, Manila:- I congratulate you and the officers and men of your command upon the brilliant feat of arms wherein you and they so well upheld the honor of the American flag.
(Signed) Theodore Roosevelt.
I have read carefully the Treaty of Paris. I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make these people free and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way; and so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.”
From Mark Twain in 1906 to Kurt Vonnegut in 2003 to us in 2007.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
1 of 1
Raymundo Marquez
Apr 21, 2007 08:32:00
I have but a passing acquaintance with Kurt Vonnegut while taking up English in college, though I have known of his resistance to the brutalities of war. He was captured by the Germans during WW II, and along with six other American soldiers, he was assigned to an underground camp in Dresden where their main task was to burn all the corpses that were dumped there. Those experiences formed the theme of his best-selling "Slaughterhouse Five," and his life-long views about war.
It's not at all a surprise that he would quote Mark Twain, whose attachment to his works led him to name one of his sons Mark. But with all due respect to Mr. Rodis, I find it a long leap to equate what happened in Sulu more than a hundred years ago to what is happening in Iraq. I can only surmise he is invoking Vonnegut to attack President Bush, as if the essays Vonnegut wrote about Iraq are the last words on this war. They are not.
I must remind Mr. Rodis there are countless Americans holding divergent views from his, and I can sense he is trying to politicize it, not much different when Harry Reid recently said that war is "lost." Rodis' views, though more subltly expressed, echo those of his liberal editor, Lito Gutierrez.
Vonnegut, in his life, represented a far more complex personality, and to
use a fragment of what happened more than a century ago in the Philippines, which he quoted, as a way to bash the president and America is not fair to the country that Rodis had adopted. Yes, history is full of mistakes that foreign powers have committed against countries they colonized, and they have admitted those. But to resurrect a piece of the past as a way of viewing America as a barbaric nation while it's fighting barbaric countries like Iraq and Iran is not fair.
I wish Mr. Rodis would have honored the memory of Vonnegut with his body of work rather than to indulge in another tawdry exercise of attacking the president. There is a time for civility, folks.
Rodel Rodis, Apr 18, 2007
Kurt Vonnegut, one of my favorite authors, was 84 when he died last week. The best selling author of “Slaughterhouse-Five”, “Cat’s Cradle” and 17 other novels was a vocal critic of the Bush administration. Of the 3200 American soldiers who have died in that war, Vonnegut wrote that they are being treated “like toys a rich kid got for Christmas.”
In February of 2003, just as George W. Bush was preparing to launch his invasion of Iraq, Vonnegut participated in a reading of Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove’s book, “Voices of a People’s History of the United States.” Vonnegut chose to read Mark Twain’s response to President Theodore Roosevelt’s congratulating U.S. Commanding General (later Philippine Governor-General) Leonard Wood for his military victory in 1906 against the Moros in the Philippines. It was a prescient choice because the impending invasion of Iraq was eerily similar to the U.S. invasion of the Philippines in 1899, especially in the Muslim south.
President Theodore Roosevelt declared a similar “Mission Accomplished” on July 4, 1902 to declare an end to the hostilities in the Philippines. But it was far from over, especially in Muslim Mindanao where the Moros continued to resist U.S. rule as they had successfully repulsed Spanish attempts at colonial subjugation.
In the Battle of Bud Dajo, which took place March 10, 1906, in the island of Sulu in the southern Philippines, forces of the U.S. Army under the command of Major General Leonard Wood, a naval detachment comprising of 540 U.S. soldiers attacked a village hidden in the crater of the dormant volcano Bud Dajo. No American soldiers were killed in the “battle” although the initial reports showed that 16 were killed when they were just wounded. More than 600 mostly unarmed Muslim villagers were slaughtered, but none wounded.
Kurt Vonnegut reading Mark Twain: “This incident burst upon the world last Friday in an official cablegram from the commander of our forces in the Philippines to our Government at Washington. The substance of it was as follows:
A tribe of Moros, dark-skinned savages, had fortified themselves inthe bowl of an extinct crater not many miles from Jolo; and as they were hostiles, and bitter against us because we have been trying foreight years to take their liberties away from them, their presence in that position was a menace. Our commander, Gen. Leonard Wood, ordered a reconnaissance. It was found that the Moros numbered six hundred,counting women and children; that their crater bowl was in the summit of a peak or mountain twenty-two hundred feet above sea level, andvery difficult of access for Christian troops and artillery. Then General Wood ordered a surprise, and went along himself to see theorder carried out.
Gen. Wood’s order was, “Kill or capture the six hundred.”
There, with six hundred engaged on each side, we lost fifteen men killed outright, and we had thirty-two wounded-counting that nose and that elbow. The enemy numbered six hundred -- including women and children -- and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States.
So far as I can find out, there was only one person among our eighty millions who allowed himself the privilege of a public remark on this great occasion -- that was the President of the United States. All day Friday he was as studiously silent as the rest. But on Saturday he recognized that his duty required him to say something, and he took his pen and performed that duty. This is what he said: Washington, March 10. Wood, Manila:- I congratulate you and the officers and men of your command upon the brilliant feat of arms wherein you and they so well upheld the honor of the American flag.
(Signed) Theodore Roosevelt.
I have read carefully the Treaty of Paris. I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make these people free and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way; and so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.”
From Mark Twain in 1906 to Kurt Vonnegut in 2003 to us in 2007.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
1 of 1
Raymundo Marquez
Apr 21, 2007 08:32:00
I have but a passing acquaintance with Kurt Vonnegut while taking up English in college, though I have known of his resistance to the brutalities of war. He was captured by the Germans during WW II, and along with six other American soldiers, he was assigned to an underground camp in Dresden where their main task was to burn all the corpses that were dumped there. Those experiences formed the theme of his best-selling "Slaughterhouse Five," and his life-long views about war.
It's not at all a surprise that he would quote Mark Twain, whose attachment to his works led him to name one of his sons Mark. But with all due respect to Mr. Rodis, I find it a long leap to equate what happened in Sulu more than a hundred years ago to what is happening in Iraq. I can only surmise he is invoking Vonnegut to attack President Bush, as if the essays Vonnegut wrote about Iraq are the last words on this war. They are not.
I must remind Mr. Rodis there are countless Americans holding divergent views from his, and I can sense he is trying to politicize it, not much different when Harry Reid recently said that war is "lost." Rodis' views, though more subltly expressed, echo those of his liberal editor, Lito Gutierrez.
Vonnegut, in his life, represented a far more complex personality, and to
use a fragment of what happened more than a century ago in the Philippines, which he quoted, as a way to bash the president and America is not fair to the country that Rodis had adopted. Yes, history is full of mistakes that foreign powers have committed against countries they colonized, and they have admitted those. But to resurrect a piece of the past as a way of viewing America as a barbaric nation while it's fighting barbaric countries like Iraq and Iran is not fair.
I wish Mr. Rodis would have honored the memory of Vonnegut with his body of work rather than to indulge in another tawdry exercise of attacking the president. There is a time for civility, folks.
Debate the immigration bill
Debate the immigration bill
Rodel Rodis, May 30, 2007
If you log on to the Philippine dailies that are online and search for any mention of the White House-backed immigration bill that is winding its way in the U.S. Congress, you will find nothing. Zero. Nada. Wala. Why?
This is a bill with profound consequences for the estimated 500,000 Filipinos in the Philippines with approved immigrant visas who are just waiting for their priority dates to be current as well as for the families of the estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 Filipino TNTs (“overstaying tourists”) in the U.S. who may get “amnesty”.
Filipino community organizations should hold forums or debates on this issue, fleshing out the bill’s provisions and its impact on Filipinos and other groups in the U.S. The community needs to be educated about the pros and cons to determine if the bill that deserves our support or opposition.
In my last column, I expressed cautious support for the bill with reservations. But the Filipinos for Affirmative Action (FAA), based in Oakland, California, has no reservations whatsoever in its opposition to the bill “because it continues to criminalize and scapegoat immigrants, further militarizes the border, shifts immigration policy from family-based immigration to a temporary employment and merit-based immigration system, does little to fix the backlog of family petitions, and proposes an unworkable legalization plan that would benefit few undocumented.”
The FAA is factually wrong when it charges that the bill “does little to fix the backlog of family petitions.” Title V of the bill provides 400,000 immigrant visas a year directed towards speeding up the issuance of immigrant visas. For married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who were petitioned in April of 2005, they would only have to wait eight years to immigrate to the U.S., instead of 20 years. The same would be true for siblings of U.S. citizens who were petitioned in April of 2005.
The problem is for those who were petitioned after May 1, 2005. Under this bill, their petitions would be voided even if they were already approved. And those who waited for years to become U.S. citizens so that they could petition their adult married or unmarried children and their siblings will no longer be able to do so as the bill eliminates four of the five family preference categories. This is anti-family values.
On the pro side, however, is the news that this past week, the U.S. Senate approved an amendment to the bill sponsored by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) that provides an additional 20,000 immigrant visas to the married and unmarried children of Filipino WW II veterans who are already in their 80s and 90s. As Sen. Akaka noted after his amendment was approved 89-7, “it would be a great final honor for these heroes to be joined and cared for by their adult children as they move through their golden years.”
The FAA is correct in asserting that the bill “continues to criminalize and scapegoat immigrants”. But that is already happening now and whether this bill passes or not, the trend will undoubtedly continue. Except that if the bill doesn’t pass, the 12 million “overstaying tourists” - who may have the opportunity to legalize themselves with Z visas - will not have any relief from their continued criminalization.
The FAA also believes that the bill offers “an unworkable legalization plan that would benefit few undocumented.” That is entirely possible but let us recall that many thought the 1986 Amnesty Bill would also be unworkable. As it turned out, the bill provided green cards to at least 3,000,000 “illegal aliens” (this term is politically incorrect but “undocumented aliens”, a term favored by the FAA, does not include most Filipino TNTs who are “overstaying documented”).
This bill creates a new four-year, renewable “Z” nonimmigrant visa to the “undocumented” and “overstaying documented” population within the U.S. The Z visa is split up into three groups: a principal or employed alien (Z-1), the spouse or elderly parent of that alien (Z-2), and the minor children of that alien (Z-3). In order to be eligible for this Z visa, one must have been illegally present within the U.S. before January 1, 2007, be currently employed and pay fees and penalties totaling $1,000.
The bill provides that once a Z applicant submits a completed application, fingerprints, and is cleared by one-day background checks, he or she will receive probationary benefits which can eventually be converted to a Z nonimmigrant status after all background checks are clear and certain “triggers” are achieved.
The Z nonimmigrant may then apply to adjust status to lawful permanent residence “after the family backlog under Title V is eliminated if the Z applicant satisfies the merit requirements in the points schedule set forth in Title V, files the application for adjustment in the Z-1’s country of origin and pays a penalty of $4,000.”
The bill also incorporates the Dream Act where “individuals under the age of 30 who were brought to the United States out of their own control as a minor are eligible to receive their green card after three years rather than eight.”
The FAA believes that the “legalization provision is a false promise for the 12 million undocumented… fraught with obstacles that are a serious deterrent to the much-needed integration of this population who exist on the margins of society.”
The FAA considers the “requirement of continuous employment and particularly the ‘touch back’ provision” to be “unworkable”. The Z nonimmigrant who seeks an immigrant visa is required to return to his or her country of origin to apply for legal status using the new merit-based, point system.
According to the FAA, “few undocumented believe that the Department of Homeland Security, which has made its anti-immigrant sentiments clear, will let them back in. Since the merit system favors the educated and very skilled, millions of the undocumented will not qualify for legal status. Many will likely view ‘touch back’ as a potential trap and not avail of it.”
The FAA may be right on that point and we will not know for sure until the bill is passed and the system is set in place. No one can guarantee that it will work but no one can also say for certain that it won’t.
But what is the alternative? To believe that the U.S. Congress will pass a perfect immigration bill that will contain only positive provisions with no negative consequences is to believe in fantasy. It just won’t happen, not in our lifetime.
Let us recall that in December of 2005, the House passed, by a lopsided margin, the extremely repressive Sensenbrenner bill that would criminalize the 12 million TNTs in the U.S. The November 2006 elections changed only about 10% of the 435 members of the House, enough to transfer power to the Democrats. But will it be enough to pass the bill now being considered by the Senate? Included in the Democratic majority are 35 members of the Blue Dog Democratic caucus who are ideologically more Republican than Democrat on social issues like the immigration bill.
Is the current broken immigration system better than the one now being proposed? Should the Filipino American community back this immigration bill or oppose it?
What do you think?
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
1 of 1
L. Gonzales
May 30, 2007 09:14:47
As a naturalized American from the Philippines, I can sympathize with those who have been agitating to get a path towards a legalized status, or amnesty as it should be correctly termed. But as a law-abiding citizen who immigrated to this country legally, and having had to wait my turn, I just cannot bring myself to support a bill that would reward those who broke the law.
And let's be honest about it: the million TNTs and overstaying aliens are lawbreakers. Trying to mitigate the situation with the clever use of euphemisms like "undocumented immigrants" and "overstaying documented" will not help matters any. In fact, such tactic is liable to inflamme the situation further, as is now happening after the secretly-crafted bill
was released to an unsuspecting public. It has drawn outrage from everybody, which makes me think the chances for its passage get dimmer and dimmer.
Bush and his cohorts continue to insist that the bill will not be granting amnesty. Most of us, however, can see through that chicanery. Coming to this country illegally is a crime, and so granting them legal status instead of punishing them for that crime clearly is a pardon, or amnesty. The fact that fines are meted out and triggers on border security have to be met does not change the basic issue of whether we are repeating the mistakes of that first amnesty act in 1986.
That act, signed by then President Reagan, was supposed to tighten border security, prevent further illegal invasion, and strictly enforce sanctions against businesses employing illegal aliens, the same things we are now being promised. We know now that was all a big joke. Giving that amnesty was an egregious mistake, for it led to this current invasion of 12 to 20 million illegals, and with more coming.
Just about every interest group in this country had expressed its comments about the current bill, most of them critical, including that of the FAA. I think we can discuss endlessly certain particulars of this bill as they pertain to the TNTs, but at the end of the day, as long as the vast majority of Americans perceive this as just another political gambit with no teeth, and as a ploy to win votes, nothing will come out of it.
As long as this bill is tethered on the idea that breaking the law can be rewarded, this bill is not going to go anywhere. America may be a nation of compassion, but it is also a nation of laws. Any government that thinks it's alright to violate the law without penalties deserves to be condemned, and that's certainly true for that cowboy president and his feckless stagehands. No, no, no, there is no way we should support a bill that slaps us hard in our faces. Never!
Rodel Rodis, May 30, 2007
If you log on to the Philippine dailies that are online and search for any mention of the White House-backed immigration bill that is winding its way in the U.S. Congress, you will find nothing. Zero. Nada. Wala. Why?
This is a bill with profound consequences for the estimated 500,000 Filipinos in the Philippines with approved immigrant visas who are just waiting for their priority dates to be current as well as for the families of the estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 Filipino TNTs (“overstaying tourists”) in the U.S. who may get “amnesty”.
Filipino community organizations should hold forums or debates on this issue, fleshing out the bill’s provisions and its impact on Filipinos and other groups in the U.S. The community needs to be educated about the pros and cons to determine if the bill that deserves our support or opposition.
In my last column, I expressed cautious support for the bill with reservations. But the Filipinos for Affirmative Action (FAA), based in Oakland, California, has no reservations whatsoever in its opposition to the bill “because it continues to criminalize and scapegoat immigrants, further militarizes the border, shifts immigration policy from family-based immigration to a temporary employment and merit-based immigration system, does little to fix the backlog of family petitions, and proposes an unworkable legalization plan that would benefit few undocumented.”
The FAA is factually wrong when it charges that the bill “does little to fix the backlog of family petitions.” Title V of the bill provides 400,000 immigrant visas a year directed towards speeding up the issuance of immigrant visas. For married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who were petitioned in April of 2005, they would only have to wait eight years to immigrate to the U.S., instead of 20 years. The same would be true for siblings of U.S. citizens who were petitioned in April of 2005.
The problem is for those who were petitioned after May 1, 2005. Under this bill, their petitions would be voided even if they were already approved. And those who waited for years to become U.S. citizens so that they could petition their adult married or unmarried children and their siblings will no longer be able to do so as the bill eliminates four of the five family preference categories. This is anti-family values.
On the pro side, however, is the news that this past week, the U.S. Senate approved an amendment to the bill sponsored by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) that provides an additional 20,000 immigrant visas to the married and unmarried children of Filipino WW II veterans who are already in their 80s and 90s. As Sen. Akaka noted after his amendment was approved 89-7, “it would be a great final honor for these heroes to be joined and cared for by their adult children as they move through their golden years.”
The FAA is correct in asserting that the bill “continues to criminalize and scapegoat immigrants”. But that is already happening now and whether this bill passes or not, the trend will undoubtedly continue. Except that if the bill doesn’t pass, the 12 million “overstaying tourists” - who may have the opportunity to legalize themselves with Z visas - will not have any relief from their continued criminalization.
The FAA also believes that the bill offers “an unworkable legalization plan that would benefit few undocumented.” That is entirely possible but let us recall that many thought the 1986 Amnesty Bill would also be unworkable. As it turned out, the bill provided green cards to at least 3,000,000 “illegal aliens” (this term is politically incorrect but “undocumented aliens”, a term favored by the FAA, does not include most Filipino TNTs who are “overstaying documented”).
This bill creates a new four-year, renewable “Z” nonimmigrant visa to the “undocumented” and “overstaying documented” population within the U.S. The Z visa is split up into three groups: a principal or employed alien (Z-1), the spouse or elderly parent of that alien (Z-2), and the minor children of that alien (Z-3). In order to be eligible for this Z visa, one must have been illegally present within the U.S. before January 1, 2007, be currently employed and pay fees and penalties totaling $1,000.
The bill provides that once a Z applicant submits a completed application, fingerprints, and is cleared by one-day background checks, he or she will receive probationary benefits which can eventually be converted to a Z nonimmigrant status after all background checks are clear and certain “triggers” are achieved.
The Z nonimmigrant may then apply to adjust status to lawful permanent residence “after the family backlog under Title V is eliminated if the Z applicant satisfies the merit requirements in the points schedule set forth in Title V, files the application for adjustment in the Z-1’s country of origin and pays a penalty of $4,000.”
The bill also incorporates the Dream Act where “individuals under the age of 30 who were brought to the United States out of their own control as a minor are eligible to receive their green card after three years rather than eight.”
The FAA believes that the “legalization provision is a false promise for the 12 million undocumented… fraught with obstacles that are a serious deterrent to the much-needed integration of this population who exist on the margins of society.”
The FAA considers the “requirement of continuous employment and particularly the ‘touch back’ provision” to be “unworkable”. The Z nonimmigrant who seeks an immigrant visa is required to return to his or her country of origin to apply for legal status using the new merit-based, point system.
According to the FAA, “few undocumented believe that the Department of Homeland Security, which has made its anti-immigrant sentiments clear, will let them back in. Since the merit system favors the educated and very skilled, millions of the undocumented will not qualify for legal status. Many will likely view ‘touch back’ as a potential trap and not avail of it.”
The FAA may be right on that point and we will not know for sure until the bill is passed and the system is set in place. No one can guarantee that it will work but no one can also say for certain that it won’t.
But what is the alternative? To believe that the U.S. Congress will pass a perfect immigration bill that will contain only positive provisions with no negative consequences is to believe in fantasy. It just won’t happen, not in our lifetime.
Let us recall that in December of 2005, the House passed, by a lopsided margin, the extremely repressive Sensenbrenner bill that would criminalize the 12 million TNTs in the U.S. The November 2006 elections changed only about 10% of the 435 members of the House, enough to transfer power to the Democrats. But will it be enough to pass the bill now being considered by the Senate? Included in the Democratic majority are 35 members of the Blue Dog Democratic caucus who are ideologically more Republican than Democrat on social issues like the immigration bill.
Is the current broken immigration system better than the one now being proposed? Should the Filipino American community back this immigration bill or oppose it?
What do you think?
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
1 of 1
L. Gonzales
May 30, 2007 09:14:47
As a naturalized American from the Philippines, I can sympathize with those who have been agitating to get a path towards a legalized status, or amnesty as it should be correctly termed. But as a law-abiding citizen who immigrated to this country legally, and having had to wait my turn, I just cannot bring myself to support a bill that would reward those who broke the law.
And let's be honest about it: the million TNTs and overstaying aliens are lawbreakers. Trying to mitigate the situation with the clever use of euphemisms like "undocumented immigrants" and "overstaying documented" will not help matters any. In fact, such tactic is liable to inflamme the situation further, as is now happening after the secretly-crafted bill
was released to an unsuspecting public. It has drawn outrage from everybody, which makes me think the chances for its passage get dimmer and dimmer.
Bush and his cohorts continue to insist that the bill will not be granting amnesty. Most of us, however, can see through that chicanery. Coming to this country illegally is a crime, and so granting them legal status instead of punishing them for that crime clearly is a pardon, or amnesty. The fact that fines are meted out and triggers on border security have to be met does not change the basic issue of whether we are repeating the mistakes of that first amnesty act in 1986.
That act, signed by then President Reagan, was supposed to tighten border security, prevent further illegal invasion, and strictly enforce sanctions against businesses employing illegal aliens, the same things we are now being promised. We know now that was all a big joke. Giving that amnesty was an egregious mistake, for it led to this current invasion of 12 to 20 million illegals, and with more coming.
Just about every interest group in this country had expressed its comments about the current bill, most of them critical, including that of the FAA. I think we can discuss endlessly certain particulars of this bill as they pertain to the TNTs, but at the end of the day, as long as the vast majority of Americans perceive this as just another political gambit with no teeth, and as a ploy to win votes, nothing will come out of it.
As long as this bill is tethered on the idea that breaking the law can be rewarded, this bill is not going to go anywhere. America may be a nation of compassion, but it is also a nation of laws. Any government that thinks it's alright to violate the law without penalties deserves to be condemned, and that's certainly true for that cowboy president and his feckless stagehands. No, no, no, there is no way we should support a bill that slaps us hard in our faces. Never!
The law of unintended consequences
The law of unintended consequences
Rodel Rodis, Jun 06, 2007
It all began with a column I wrote two months ago criticizing State Sen. Leland Yee (“O Yee of Little Faith”, April 2, 2007) for putting the interest of his financial contributors over that of his own Chinese American community when he opposed the 16-story campus that City College planned to build in San Francisco’s Chinatown because the Justice Investors group, which owns the 27-story Hilton Hotel Chinatown, did not want a campus building that would block its hotel rooms’ view of the San Francisco Bay.
After the column appeared on April 3, 2007, Adam Keigwin of Sen. Yee’s Sacramento office immediately issued an “Asian Press Beware” advisory which he emailed to various Asian community newspapers asking them not to publish my column because it was “filled with several lies and distortions regarding Senator Yee”.
Keigwin then prepared an article called “Shame, Shame, Shame” which accused me of “conducting a ridiculous smear campaign” against Yee, which, the article claimed, was a product of my “twisted world” and my “attitude born of arrogance”.
Knowing of the Filipino crab mentality and of our community’s reputation for putting our leaders down, Keigwin sought a Filipino American to use as a byline. He likely would not have employed this obvious divide-and-conquer tactic with any other ethnic group.
Keigwin needed to find a San Francisco Filipino American leader because the article claimed that “San Francisco voters approved bond funds because we support the mission and purpose of the College”. But because he could not find any FilAm community leader in San Francisco to agree to be its author, Keigwin had to settle for Daly City resident Ademan “Adie” Angeles. To give him some credibility, Keigwin attached the title “President of the FilAm San Mateo Democratic Alliance” under Ademan’s name.
Alice Bulos, the esteemed leader of the FilAm Democratic Caucus of California, notes that Adie’s organization is not recognized by the San Mateo County Democratic Party Central Committee because it only has one member.
After the Keigwin response appeared on the Internet, I called up Adie to ask him why he allowed his name to be used by Keigwin. Adie’s response: “Ah, politics, pare”. It appears he owed Yee big time because Yee had endorsed his campaign for a city council seat in Daly City. With Yee’s endorsement, Ademan avoided the cellar and placed second to last among eight candidates who ran for the city council in the November 2006 elections. (The topnotcher, FilAm Mike Guingona, was not endorsed by Yee.)
To his credit, Adie never claimed to me that he wrote the piece and anyone who knows Adie will readily agree that he is simply not capable of writing that polished an article in English.
On April 12, 2007, Keigwin wrote another hit piece on me but this time he used a San Franciscan in the byline. Learning his lesson from the Ademan Angeles fiasco, Keigwin used the name of “Aaron Peskin, President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.”
The article Keigwin wrote under Peskin’s name carried virtually the same line that he used in the article he wrote for Ademan which charged me with having a “kill the messenger” mentality. In the article for Peskin, Keigwin claims that I have an “attack the messenger” mentality.
The constant barrage of articles directed against me from Leland Yee’s spokesman produced the opposite effect he intended. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT Local 2121) emailed my Philippine News article about Leland Yee to the 1,850 faculty members of City College. World Journal, the largest Chinese daily in San Francisco, reprinted my article in Chinese. My article was all over the Internet.
When I attended a Filipino Bar Association dinner last month, two Chinese American Superior Court judges came to me and thanked me for writing the article about Leland Yee. “Finally, someone had the guts to expose him,” one said.
On May 30, 2007, the SF Weekly published an expose called “Shadow Play” about “who’s getting money from the hotel opposed to the new City College campus in Chinatown.”
The article reported that Leland Yee has “enjoyed financial support from the biggest opponents of the high-rise, the owners of the 31-story Hilton Hotel in the San Francisco Financial District…owned by Justice Investors, a limited partnership formed in 1967. Its point man is attorney Robert McCarthy, who is listed as “counsel” for public affairs firm GCA Strategies.”
“Records show that since 2000, (Yee) has received at least $19,000 in campaign contributions from parties connected with the hotel’s interests. They include $3,300 from Justice Investors; $6,200 from GCA Strategies; $4,750 from McCarthy and/or his wife; $3,450 from Noto, and $1,500 from Debra Stein, GCA’s president.”
On Saturday, June 2, 2007, the San Francisco Chronicle, in the front page of its Metro section (“Chinatown Campus Opponents Criticized”), reported that a coalition of Chinese American community organizations attacked Sen. Leland Yee “in full-page ads that ran Friday in five of the Chinese-language newspapers in the Bay Area for opposing a controversial City College campus proposed for Chinatown.”
“Among the ads’ harsh words for the San Francisco Democrats were: “You dare to rape people’s will, betray us, and threaten the community. Whose interests do you represent anyway?”
“The advertisements were paid for by the Chinese American Association of Commerce and undersigned by 81 community groups, including dozens of prominent Chinese American families and influential regional associations.”
“The fierce criticism directed at Ma and Yee is extremely unusual because Chinese elected officials are typically treated with deference by traditional Chinese community organizations and the ethnic press.”
“It reflects deep anger,” said Ling-chi Wang, a supporter of the City College proposal and the retired chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department at UC Berkeley. “This has never been done.”
On Monday, June 4, 2007, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that “several hundred” members of the Chinese community rallied at Portsmouth Square in Chinatown on Sunday to express their full support for the proposed 16-story City College campus in Chinatown.
“Carrying protest signs that read “Come Home Prodigal Son Leland Yee and Prodigal Daughter Fiona Ma,” the crowd filled the square, signing petitions and listening to speakers demand that the proposed 16-story glass and steel structure be built immediately,” the Chronicle reported.
“We’re putting people before profit,” City Assessor Phil Ting told the crowd. “In our community, education comes first.”
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
Rodel Rodis, Jun 06, 2007
It all began with a column I wrote two months ago criticizing State Sen. Leland Yee (“O Yee of Little Faith”, April 2, 2007) for putting the interest of his financial contributors over that of his own Chinese American community when he opposed the 16-story campus that City College planned to build in San Francisco’s Chinatown because the Justice Investors group, which owns the 27-story Hilton Hotel Chinatown, did not want a campus building that would block its hotel rooms’ view of the San Francisco Bay.
After the column appeared on April 3, 2007, Adam Keigwin of Sen. Yee’s Sacramento office immediately issued an “Asian Press Beware” advisory which he emailed to various Asian community newspapers asking them not to publish my column because it was “filled with several lies and distortions regarding Senator Yee”.
Keigwin then prepared an article called “Shame, Shame, Shame” which accused me of “conducting a ridiculous smear campaign” against Yee, which, the article claimed, was a product of my “twisted world” and my “attitude born of arrogance”.
Knowing of the Filipino crab mentality and of our community’s reputation for putting our leaders down, Keigwin sought a Filipino American to use as a byline. He likely would not have employed this obvious divide-and-conquer tactic with any other ethnic group.
Keigwin needed to find a San Francisco Filipino American leader because the article claimed that “San Francisco voters approved bond funds because we support the mission and purpose of the College”. But because he could not find any FilAm community leader in San Francisco to agree to be its author, Keigwin had to settle for Daly City resident Ademan “Adie” Angeles. To give him some credibility, Keigwin attached the title “President of the FilAm San Mateo Democratic Alliance” under Ademan’s name.
Alice Bulos, the esteemed leader of the FilAm Democratic Caucus of California, notes that Adie’s organization is not recognized by the San Mateo County Democratic Party Central Committee because it only has one member.
After the Keigwin response appeared on the Internet, I called up Adie to ask him why he allowed his name to be used by Keigwin. Adie’s response: “Ah, politics, pare”. It appears he owed Yee big time because Yee had endorsed his campaign for a city council seat in Daly City. With Yee’s endorsement, Ademan avoided the cellar and placed second to last among eight candidates who ran for the city council in the November 2006 elections. (The topnotcher, FilAm Mike Guingona, was not endorsed by Yee.)
To his credit, Adie never claimed to me that he wrote the piece and anyone who knows Adie will readily agree that he is simply not capable of writing that polished an article in English.
On April 12, 2007, Keigwin wrote another hit piece on me but this time he used a San Franciscan in the byline. Learning his lesson from the Ademan Angeles fiasco, Keigwin used the name of “Aaron Peskin, President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.”
The article Keigwin wrote under Peskin’s name carried virtually the same line that he used in the article he wrote for Ademan which charged me with having a “kill the messenger” mentality. In the article for Peskin, Keigwin claims that I have an “attack the messenger” mentality.
The constant barrage of articles directed against me from Leland Yee’s spokesman produced the opposite effect he intended. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT Local 2121) emailed my Philippine News article about Leland Yee to the 1,850 faculty members of City College. World Journal, the largest Chinese daily in San Francisco, reprinted my article in Chinese. My article was all over the Internet.
When I attended a Filipino Bar Association dinner last month, two Chinese American Superior Court judges came to me and thanked me for writing the article about Leland Yee. “Finally, someone had the guts to expose him,” one said.
On May 30, 2007, the SF Weekly published an expose called “Shadow Play” about “who’s getting money from the hotel opposed to the new City College campus in Chinatown.”
The article reported that Leland Yee has “enjoyed financial support from the biggest opponents of the high-rise, the owners of the 31-story Hilton Hotel in the San Francisco Financial District…owned by Justice Investors, a limited partnership formed in 1967. Its point man is attorney Robert McCarthy, who is listed as “counsel” for public affairs firm GCA Strategies.”
“Records show that since 2000, (Yee) has received at least $19,000 in campaign contributions from parties connected with the hotel’s interests. They include $3,300 from Justice Investors; $6,200 from GCA Strategies; $4,750 from McCarthy and/or his wife; $3,450 from Noto, and $1,500 from Debra Stein, GCA’s president.”
On Saturday, June 2, 2007, the San Francisco Chronicle, in the front page of its Metro section (“Chinatown Campus Opponents Criticized”), reported that a coalition of Chinese American community organizations attacked Sen. Leland Yee “in full-page ads that ran Friday in five of the Chinese-language newspapers in the Bay Area for opposing a controversial City College campus proposed for Chinatown.”
“Among the ads’ harsh words for the San Francisco Democrats were: “You dare to rape people’s will, betray us, and threaten the community. Whose interests do you represent anyway?”
“The advertisements were paid for by the Chinese American Association of Commerce and undersigned by 81 community groups, including dozens of prominent Chinese American families and influential regional associations.”
“The fierce criticism directed at Ma and Yee is extremely unusual because Chinese elected officials are typically treated with deference by traditional Chinese community organizations and the ethnic press.”
“It reflects deep anger,” said Ling-chi Wang, a supporter of the City College proposal and the retired chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department at UC Berkeley. “This has never been done.”
On Monday, June 4, 2007, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that “several hundred” members of the Chinese community rallied at Portsmouth Square in Chinatown on Sunday to express their full support for the proposed 16-story City College campus in Chinatown.
“Carrying protest signs that read “Come Home Prodigal Son Leland Yee and Prodigal Daughter Fiona Ma,” the crowd filled the square, signing petitions and listening to speakers demand that the proposed 16-story glass and steel structure be built immediately,” the Chronicle reported.
“We’re putting people before profit,” City Assessor Phil Ting told the crowd. “In our community, education comes first.”
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
Guest mentality
Guest mentality
Rodel Rodis, Jun 13, 2007
After my column about State Senator Leland Yee appeared last week, I received an email from my editor lamenting my criticism of the senator for putting the interests of his financial contributors above the education needs of his community. He informed me that he emailed my column to Sen. Yee and that “in the interest of fairness, we may need to run something similar from the other camp next week.”
I asked him why. When columnists of the Philippine Daily Inquirer criticize President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), as they frequently do, does the Inquirer’s editor contact Malacanang and offer an opportunity for a rebuttal in the “interest of fairness”?
I shared with the editor my observation that our Filipino American community newspapers generally have a double standard, one for Philippine politicos and another for local ones. We take a critical view of the former and a deferential approach to the latter.
When I criticized Pres. Arroyo for unfairly recalling former Ambassador to the U.S. Albert del Rosario (a move usually reserved for defective cars I wrote), was Pres. Arroyo contacted by the paper, emailed a copy of my offending column, and offered rebuttal space as was done with Sen. Yee? Why are we so deferential to local American politicos like Yee?
There are hundreds of Filipino community newspapers throughout the U.S. and I doubt that one could find a handful of them that would carry criticisms of their local city, county, state or federal officials and yet most of them would have no qualms about criticizing Pres. Arroyo or any Philippine politician.
I volunteered the observation that this double standard comes from a conscious or subconscious “guest mentality” which permeates our community and which is reflected in our community’s newspapers. As “guests” in the U.S., the mentality holds, we shouldn’t offend our “hosts” as that would be bad manners and show lack of gratitude. Nakakahiya.
In his email reply to my observation, the editor stated that he didn’t think “guest mentality” is as much an issue now as it was during the first and second waves of Filipino immigrants. “Yes, there are still those among us who feel we should be thankful because the Americans allowed us in,” he wrote. “But I think that with the higher level of education and professional attainment of many Filipinos in America now, especially those born and/or raised here, we, as a community, are more aware of our rights and duties as Americans.”
But our demographics don’t support that assessment. Of the 1.4 million Filipinos officially counted by the 1990 U.S. Census, more than 71 percent were found to be Philippine-born immigrants who came after the liberalization of U.S. immigration policy in 1965. The 2000 census showed a 66% increase in population, primarily as a result of immigration. Thus, despite the fact that we are currently celebrating a century of continuous immigration to the U.S. (from December 16, 1906), the Filipino population in America is still primarily an immigrant community.
The 2000 census counted 2.36 million Filipinos, a figure which did not cover more than 500,000 Filipino “overstaying tourists” (TNTs). If our numbers increased by almost one million from 1990 to 2000, and we are already 76% into the 2010 census, our numbers are clearly more than 3.5 million now, the overwhelming majority of which are first generation immigrants even as they are becoming naturalizedUS citizens at a higher rate than most immigrant groups.
The two Philippine TV networks which provide 24-hour cable programs to Filipinos in the US have a combined paid subscriber base of close to 400,000 (260,000 for ABS-CBN and 137,000 for GMA-TV). These Filipino subscribers in America regularly watch Philippine game shows (like ‘Wowowee’) and telenovellas and are more familiar with Philippine issues than they are with U.S. issues.
You can take the Filipinos out of the Philippines but you can’t take the Philippines out of the Filipinos.
In their essay on this subject, Mona Lisa Yuchengco and Rene Ciria Cruz observed that “it takes a while for first-generation immigrants to unconditionally embrace the United States as their country. It takes a longer stay to significantly erode the immigrant syndrome typified by guest mentality and compliant behavior.”
Yuchengco and Cruz cited the example of young activists in 1970s who launched nationwide campaigns to combat discrimination directed against foreign medical graduates. “They had to overcome the usual recent immigrant admonition, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you,” in reference to U.S. authorities.”
As we celebrate the 109th anniversary of Philippine independence this week, we should pause to consider psychologically declaring our independence from the Philippines. We should assimilate into the fabric of America, asserting our rights and responsibilities as Americans, including our right to criticize politicians like Sen. Leland Yee.
“With assimilation,” Yuchengco and Cruz wrote, “comes the erosion of debilitating immigrant syndromes among the foreign-born and a greater understanding that claiming one’s place, self-organization, and advocating for group interests are as American as apple pie.”
Happy Independence Day.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
Sen. Leland Yee responds
Last week columnist Rodel Rodis, who, among various professional and civic endeavors, is also president of the San Francisco City College, wrote again about the controversy about the college's proposed extension in Chinatown. We are publishing the following article by Senator Leland Yee in response. With this, we would, with all due respect, request the antagonists and their supporters to hold their fire, at least in Philippine News, as we think all the relevant facts and perspectives have already been offered in these pages.
Seeking a compromise
I am very proud to have been in the forefront of efforts by neighborhood groups, open space advocates and community leaders to come up with a workable alternative to meet the needs of City College without damaging the character of the Chinatown, Jackson Square and North Beach neighborhoods.
I am especially pleased to announce that on Friday, June 1st, the college administration met with Mr. Arthur Chang, a representative of the Education Coalition for Responsible Development, to negotiate a potential win-win solution in the form of an alternative that meets all the college’s needs and saves taxpayers money. Mr. Chang also serves as Vice President of San Francisco Tomorrow, the city’s premier environmental group and a leading open space advocacy organization. I commend the college for finally recognizing the value of true dialogue with the community.
As you may know, I have had serious concerns about City College’s off-the-cuff decision to scrap its 2005 plans for a mid-rise campus, in favor of a 244-foot 17-story high-rise. Equally alarming was the college administration’s refusal to enter into a dialogue with the community on its plans. That’s the same bad attitude that prevented construction of a new Chinatown campus ten years ago, and long delayed construction of the Mission campus.
I have strongly supported the construction of a new Chinatown/North Beach College campus for many years. But when the college administration tried to evict the elderly Asian residents of the Fong residential hotel and demolish the historic Colombo building years ago, I had to step in to support these Asian tenants, neighbors and preservationists. While as an educator I have been pro-education all my life, I thought it was reasonable to protect these elderly residential tenants and build a campus that respects the unique character of our neighborhoods, and at the same time meet important educational needs.
Frankly, I remain concerned about Financial District high-rises encroaching on adjacent neighborhoods and shadowing Chinatown’s open spaces and low-rise residential buildings and businesses. As you know, groups such as the Chinatown Merchant Association, North Beach Merchant Association, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Fr. Daniel McCotter, the director of St. Mary’s Chinese Schools and Center, the San Francisco Neighborhood Park Council, and other citizens, open space advocates and neighborhood groups have all expressed concern with the college high-rise. That is why I took a leading role in bringing community members together to discuss what they wanted for the new campus.
Now the Education Coalition for Responsible Development, whose members represent thousands of San Francisco residents, has stepped up to assume full leadership and propose an alternative to the high-rise. I am honored to have successfully worked with the Education Coalition, and am gratified that they have found an alternative campus on the same block, a compromise solution that works for college students and the community together. The compromise plan will not delay construction of the campus, as long as the College Board of Trustees agrees to it. Construction can start immediately after approval by the board.
If the college administration continues pushing for the controversial 17-story high-rise, a protracted legal battle is likely that will definitely delay construction.
In contrast, the compromise solution advocated by the Education Coalition could speed construction by several years, to the benefit of students who are studying in decrepit old buildings.
The compromise solution includes all the classrooms, laboratories and other facilities the college says it needs, but it also has several advantages over the high-rise. Because it includes two mid-rise buildings on the same block, it is nearly 100 feet shorter than the proposed tower, and casts no shadow on Portsmouth Square. It also includes an auditorium for college and community use, plus parking, bicycle spaces and a children’s pre-school. The college has raised a potential issue, an agreement with the Friends of the Colombo Building that limits construction on the adjacent lot to 84 feet. This presents no problem because the college can either renegotiate the agreement to allow another 14 feet, or we can reduce the size of the extra auditorium and parking garage.
As the Education Coalition assumes the mantle of leadership on this issue, I will be quietly monitoring negotiations between the community and the college. I wish them the best, and I hope all parties will keep in mind the necessity of building a campus soon. I remain adamant that the College must engage in respectful dialogue with the community and not try to impose a controversial decision on the neighborhoods. – Senator Leland Y. Lee, Ph.D., Assistant President pro Tem
1 of 1
Cesar Torres
Jun 15, 2007 16:20:18
As far as I am concerned, Atty. Rodel Rodis should be a Mayor of San Francisco. Or failing in that, he should be Supervisor of San Francisco. If not, he should be a member of the California State Legislature as an Assemblyman or as a Senator. Or as a Cabinet Member of the California State Government. Well, I don't know. Atty. Rodis is definitely a good writer. And a very erudite at that and so prolific. He is all over the world in his columns. With his qualifications, he should be in President Bush Cabinet. After all, the Philippines was the only colony of America. It is not Japan or China or India. And the Hindus practically own CNN now. But it is not happening to Atty. Rodel Rodis, as a representative of the 3 million Filipinos in America many of whom would hesitate to claim Filipino roots. Somehow, the stars are not realigning to push him to him to that place of leadership and recognition where I think he should be. With or without Bobby Reyes. I think our esteemed editor in chief should let him be. Let Atty. Rodis attain his level, whatever it might be. The Filipinos in Northern California are just staunch supporters of Chinese Americans. And yet, what have we to show for it? Nada? Zilch. Zero, itlog, bunay. Balut na hindi dapat kainin? Hahahaha. Something good might still happen with this "dialectical" interactions involving Dr. Leland Yee, Atty. Rodel Rodis, and one of the best editors of any periodicals of I have ever read.
Rodel Rodis, Jun 13, 2007
After my column about State Senator Leland Yee appeared last week, I received an email from my editor lamenting my criticism of the senator for putting the interests of his financial contributors above the education needs of his community. He informed me that he emailed my column to Sen. Yee and that “in the interest of fairness, we may need to run something similar from the other camp next week.”
I asked him why. When columnists of the Philippine Daily Inquirer criticize President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), as they frequently do, does the Inquirer’s editor contact Malacanang and offer an opportunity for a rebuttal in the “interest of fairness”?
I shared with the editor my observation that our Filipino American community newspapers generally have a double standard, one for Philippine politicos and another for local ones. We take a critical view of the former and a deferential approach to the latter.
When I criticized Pres. Arroyo for unfairly recalling former Ambassador to the U.S. Albert del Rosario (a move usually reserved for defective cars I wrote), was Pres. Arroyo contacted by the paper, emailed a copy of my offending column, and offered rebuttal space as was done with Sen. Yee? Why are we so deferential to local American politicos like Yee?
There are hundreds of Filipino community newspapers throughout the U.S. and I doubt that one could find a handful of them that would carry criticisms of their local city, county, state or federal officials and yet most of them would have no qualms about criticizing Pres. Arroyo or any Philippine politician.
I volunteered the observation that this double standard comes from a conscious or subconscious “guest mentality” which permeates our community and which is reflected in our community’s newspapers. As “guests” in the U.S., the mentality holds, we shouldn’t offend our “hosts” as that would be bad manners and show lack of gratitude. Nakakahiya.
In his email reply to my observation, the editor stated that he didn’t think “guest mentality” is as much an issue now as it was during the first and second waves of Filipino immigrants. “Yes, there are still those among us who feel we should be thankful because the Americans allowed us in,” he wrote. “But I think that with the higher level of education and professional attainment of many Filipinos in America now, especially those born and/or raised here, we, as a community, are more aware of our rights and duties as Americans.”
But our demographics don’t support that assessment. Of the 1.4 million Filipinos officially counted by the 1990 U.S. Census, more than 71 percent were found to be Philippine-born immigrants who came after the liberalization of U.S. immigration policy in 1965. The 2000 census showed a 66% increase in population, primarily as a result of immigration. Thus, despite the fact that we are currently celebrating a century of continuous immigration to the U.S. (from December 16, 1906), the Filipino population in America is still primarily an immigrant community.
The 2000 census counted 2.36 million Filipinos, a figure which did not cover more than 500,000 Filipino “overstaying tourists” (TNTs). If our numbers increased by almost one million from 1990 to 2000, and we are already 76% into the 2010 census, our numbers are clearly more than 3.5 million now, the overwhelming majority of which are first generation immigrants even as they are becoming naturalizedUS citizens at a higher rate than most immigrant groups.
The two Philippine TV networks which provide 24-hour cable programs to Filipinos in the US have a combined paid subscriber base of close to 400,000 (260,000 for ABS-CBN and 137,000 for GMA-TV). These Filipino subscribers in America regularly watch Philippine game shows (like ‘Wowowee’) and telenovellas and are more familiar with Philippine issues than they are with U.S. issues.
You can take the Filipinos out of the Philippines but you can’t take the Philippines out of the Filipinos.
In their essay on this subject, Mona Lisa Yuchengco and Rene Ciria Cruz observed that “it takes a while for first-generation immigrants to unconditionally embrace the United States as their country. It takes a longer stay to significantly erode the immigrant syndrome typified by guest mentality and compliant behavior.”
Yuchengco and Cruz cited the example of young activists in 1970s who launched nationwide campaigns to combat discrimination directed against foreign medical graduates. “They had to overcome the usual recent immigrant admonition, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you,” in reference to U.S. authorities.”
As we celebrate the 109th anniversary of Philippine independence this week, we should pause to consider psychologically declaring our independence from the Philippines. We should assimilate into the fabric of America, asserting our rights and responsibilities as Americans, including our right to criticize politicians like Sen. Leland Yee.
“With assimilation,” Yuchengco and Cruz wrote, “comes the erosion of debilitating immigrant syndromes among the foreign-born and a greater understanding that claiming one’s place, self-organization, and advocating for group interests are as American as apple pie.”
Happy Independence Day.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
Sen. Leland Yee responds
Last week columnist Rodel Rodis, who, among various professional and civic endeavors, is also president of the San Francisco City College, wrote again about the controversy about the college's proposed extension in Chinatown. We are publishing the following article by Senator Leland Yee in response. With this, we would, with all due respect, request the antagonists and their supporters to hold their fire, at least in Philippine News, as we think all the relevant facts and perspectives have already been offered in these pages.
Seeking a compromise
I am very proud to have been in the forefront of efforts by neighborhood groups, open space advocates and community leaders to come up with a workable alternative to meet the needs of City College without damaging the character of the Chinatown, Jackson Square and North Beach neighborhoods.
I am especially pleased to announce that on Friday, June 1st, the college administration met with Mr. Arthur Chang, a representative of the Education Coalition for Responsible Development, to negotiate a potential win-win solution in the form of an alternative that meets all the college’s needs and saves taxpayers money. Mr. Chang also serves as Vice President of San Francisco Tomorrow, the city’s premier environmental group and a leading open space advocacy organization. I commend the college for finally recognizing the value of true dialogue with the community.
As you may know, I have had serious concerns about City College’s off-the-cuff decision to scrap its 2005 plans for a mid-rise campus, in favor of a 244-foot 17-story high-rise. Equally alarming was the college administration’s refusal to enter into a dialogue with the community on its plans. That’s the same bad attitude that prevented construction of a new Chinatown campus ten years ago, and long delayed construction of the Mission campus.
I have strongly supported the construction of a new Chinatown/North Beach College campus for many years. But when the college administration tried to evict the elderly Asian residents of the Fong residential hotel and demolish the historic Colombo building years ago, I had to step in to support these Asian tenants, neighbors and preservationists. While as an educator I have been pro-education all my life, I thought it was reasonable to protect these elderly residential tenants and build a campus that respects the unique character of our neighborhoods, and at the same time meet important educational needs.
Frankly, I remain concerned about Financial District high-rises encroaching on adjacent neighborhoods and shadowing Chinatown’s open spaces and low-rise residential buildings and businesses. As you know, groups such as the Chinatown Merchant Association, North Beach Merchant Association, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Fr. Daniel McCotter, the director of St. Mary’s Chinese Schools and Center, the San Francisco Neighborhood Park Council, and other citizens, open space advocates and neighborhood groups have all expressed concern with the college high-rise. That is why I took a leading role in bringing community members together to discuss what they wanted for the new campus.
Now the Education Coalition for Responsible Development, whose members represent thousands of San Francisco residents, has stepped up to assume full leadership and propose an alternative to the high-rise. I am honored to have successfully worked with the Education Coalition, and am gratified that they have found an alternative campus on the same block, a compromise solution that works for college students and the community together. The compromise plan will not delay construction of the campus, as long as the College Board of Trustees agrees to it. Construction can start immediately after approval by the board.
If the college administration continues pushing for the controversial 17-story high-rise, a protracted legal battle is likely that will definitely delay construction.
In contrast, the compromise solution advocated by the Education Coalition could speed construction by several years, to the benefit of students who are studying in decrepit old buildings.
The compromise solution includes all the classrooms, laboratories and other facilities the college says it needs, but it also has several advantages over the high-rise. Because it includes two mid-rise buildings on the same block, it is nearly 100 feet shorter than the proposed tower, and casts no shadow on Portsmouth Square. It also includes an auditorium for college and community use, plus parking, bicycle spaces and a children’s pre-school. The college has raised a potential issue, an agreement with the Friends of the Colombo Building that limits construction on the adjacent lot to 84 feet. This presents no problem because the college can either renegotiate the agreement to allow another 14 feet, or we can reduce the size of the extra auditorium and parking garage.
As the Education Coalition assumes the mantle of leadership on this issue, I will be quietly monitoring negotiations between the community and the college. I wish them the best, and I hope all parties will keep in mind the necessity of building a campus soon. I remain adamant that the College must engage in respectful dialogue with the community and not try to impose a controversial decision on the neighborhoods. – Senator Leland Y. Lee, Ph.D., Assistant President pro Tem
1 of 1
Cesar Torres
Jun 15, 2007 16:20:18
As far as I am concerned, Atty. Rodel Rodis should be a Mayor of San Francisco. Or failing in that, he should be Supervisor of San Francisco. If not, he should be a member of the California State Legislature as an Assemblyman or as a Senator. Or as a Cabinet Member of the California State Government. Well, I don't know. Atty. Rodis is definitely a good writer. And a very erudite at that and so prolific. He is all over the world in his columns. With his qualifications, he should be in President Bush Cabinet. After all, the Philippines was the only colony of America. It is not Japan or China or India. And the Hindus practically own CNN now. But it is not happening to Atty. Rodel Rodis, as a representative of the 3 million Filipinos in America many of whom would hesitate to claim Filipino roots. Somehow, the stars are not realigning to push him to him to that place of leadership and recognition where I think he should be. With or without Bobby Reyes. I think our esteemed editor in chief should let him be. Let Atty. Rodis attain his level, whatever it might be. The Filipinos in Northern California are just staunch supporters of Chinese Americans. And yet, what have we to show for it? Nada? Zilch. Zero, itlog, bunay. Balut na hindi dapat kainin? Hahahaha. Something good might still happen with this "dialectical" interactions involving Dr. Leland Yee, Atty. Rodel Rodis, and one of the best editors of any periodicals of I have ever read.
Iraq and immigration
Iraq and immigration
Rodel Rodis, Jun 20, 2007
The two most polarizing issues confronting the major political parties in the U.S. are Iraq and immigration. Iraq is dividing the Democrats while immigration is bedeviling the Republicans. The moderate middle ground that may bring people together on those issues has been largely abandoned by the major presidential candidates who have chosen to cater to their parties’ core bases.
The timing of these two issues has been uncanny. President Bush announced major immigration reforms on the 4th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He vetoed the Democratic bill that would set timetables for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq on the very day when hundreds of thousands rallied around the U.S. for immigration reform.
Hypocrisy is also at play here. The conservatives, who oppose the immigration bill that may provide a “path to citizenship” to the estimated 12 million aliens who are illegally in the US, argue that the bill would reward illegality. But they are the first to also argue that even if the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was illegal (as it was sold to the American people on the package of lies that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was an immediate threat to the U.S., and was connected to 9/11), we’re stuck and we can’t leave Iraq because chaos and genocide would ensue if the U.S. left.
Those who favor immigration reform concede that there was illegality in the entry but that we now have to deal with the reality of 12 million “illegals” in the U.S. and what to do about them. As Tom Ridge, the first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, stated three years ago, it is not in the interests of U.S. national security for the government not to know the names, addresses and backgrounds of 12 million people who live in the shadows. President Bush said that it would be impossible for the U.S. to deport the 12 million people and that the best alternative is to find a way to legalize them so that they will voluntarily register and the U.S. can then keep track of them.
While all that may be reasonable thinking, it just doesn’t resonate with the Republican base who oppose any bill that may offer “amnesty” to illegal immigrants. (They favor amnesty for Scooter Libby, however, even though he was found guilty of committing federal felonies.)
The latest Republican hopeful to enter the presidential derby, former U.S. Senator and current TV actor Fred Thompson, denounced the immigration bill by charging that the United States is “beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world”.
Lou Dobbs of CNN has been waging a daily attack on illegal aliens by constantly injecting inflammatory facts that turn out to be false. “The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans,” Dobbs announced on his April 14, 2005 TV program. A CNN correspondent then came on and said that “There were about 900 cases of leprosy in the last 40 years. There have been 7,000 cases in the past three years.” Dobbs has repeated this charge on his daily TV show.
It turns out that while there have been 7,000 cases of leprosy (Hansen’s Disease), they have occurred in the last 30 years, not the last three. The peak year, according to the National Hansen’s Disease Program, was in 1983 when there were 456 reported cases. In 2006, there were 137 cases.
This week The New York Times reports that “the left-for-dead Senate immigration bill should be up off the slab, lurching toward a final vote.” It had been bogged down with “poison pill” amendments intended to kill it but it has now been repackaged with an additional $4.4 billion package for border security, “a super-heavy-duty enforcement” gesture to the anti-amnesty minutemen constituents. Instead of hundreds of amendments, the bill will now just face 10 before the vote. Here are some of them:
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) has an amendment to send applicants for legalization on a “touchback” trip abroad before getting their Z visas, a proposal that may work for 8 million Mexicans but not for the 600,000 Filipinos. The amendment of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nevada) would prevent those who paid into Social Security as illegal immigrants from ever getting that money back, and cut off their young children from death benefits. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) would seek to require that all state and local laws that forbid government employees to ask people’s immigration status be stricken before other provisions of the bill take effect. Sen. Christopher Bond (R- Missouri) would prohibit holders of Z visas from ever getting green cards.
And then there’s Sen. Lindsey Graham, whom the New York Times previously reported as having “spoken movingly about the need for reasonable, decent treatment of immigrants, especially immigrant families.”
Because he is up for reelection next year, he has now become “Sensenbrennerized”, proposing the killer amendment, to criminalize aliens who overstay their visas, subject to minimum 60-day prison sentences.
The New York Times counseled that “the only workable immigration reform will be one that values being smart over being reflexively tough. It will be one that combines enforcement at the border and in the workplace with a path to legal status, even citizenship, for the immigrants already here, and a lawful and orderly flow of future workers. That’s the dream, anyway. Congress had a bill like that once, a while back, but the dream is in great danger of slipping away.”
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
1 of 1
Lillian Guerrero
Jun 20, 2007 07:26:00
Some comments on this column:
(1) To make an analogy between illegal immigration ahd the Iraq war is disingenuous. The 12 to 20 million aliens we are dealing with now came here in violation of immigration laws. No question about that. The Iraq War, on the other hand, was not illegal, having been authorized by Congress on the intelligence available at the time. In retrospect, there were flaws in that intelligence, but that does not make it illegal. Whether to withdraw now or not is irrelevant to this debate.
(2) I get the feeling Mr. Rodis wants to legalize these aliens. Does he, as a lawyer, still believe in the rule of law? Is it not clear that amnesty would be rewarding illegal behavior?
(3) Those amendments offerred by Senators Hutchinson, Ensign, Bond, Coleman and Graham are quite reasonable. In fact, Atty. Rodis has not mentioned amendments rejected by Democrats that would deport criminals and those 700,000 absconders who continue to hide despite court orders.
(4) Atty. Rodis again fails to mention that this immigration bill is opposed not only by Republicans, but by Democrats as well. That's true in all the polls.
(5) Lou Dobbs, a liberal on CNN, is singled out in this column for a minor error, but not for his cogent arguments he has been telling us for the past one year. He has been helped in this regard by "talk radio" which Trent Lott recently accused of ruling this country. No, Senator Lott, those are the voices of most Americans on this issue, not just of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
(6) Lastly, Atty. Rodis invokes a statement from the NY Times about a dream that now has become a bubble. The Times, once a paper of record, has become a liberal voice, printing all the news it wants to print, whether unfit as long as it adheres to its agenda. It has become less and less credible with its propaganda and its continually declining circulation.
The compromise bill may have been revived, but its chances of being resuscitated successfully are nil. There just is no way to force it down the throats of most Americans, unless you happen to love Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid.
Rodel Rodis, Jun 20, 2007
The two most polarizing issues confronting the major political parties in the U.S. are Iraq and immigration. Iraq is dividing the Democrats while immigration is bedeviling the Republicans. The moderate middle ground that may bring people together on those issues has been largely abandoned by the major presidential candidates who have chosen to cater to their parties’ core bases.
The timing of these two issues has been uncanny. President Bush announced major immigration reforms on the 4th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He vetoed the Democratic bill that would set timetables for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq on the very day when hundreds of thousands rallied around the U.S. for immigration reform.
Hypocrisy is also at play here. The conservatives, who oppose the immigration bill that may provide a “path to citizenship” to the estimated 12 million aliens who are illegally in the US, argue that the bill would reward illegality. But they are the first to also argue that even if the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was illegal (as it was sold to the American people on the package of lies that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was an immediate threat to the U.S., and was connected to 9/11), we’re stuck and we can’t leave Iraq because chaos and genocide would ensue if the U.S. left.
Those who favor immigration reform concede that there was illegality in the entry but that we now have to deal with the reality of 12 million “illegals” in the U.S. and what to do about them. As Tom Ridge, the first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, stated three years ago, it is not in the interests of U.S. national security for the government not to know the names, addresses and backgrounds of 12 million people who live in the shadows. President Bush said that it would be impossible for the U.S. to deport the 12 million people and that the best alternative is to find a way to legalize them so that they will voluntarily register and the U.S. can then keep track of them.
While all that may be reasonable thinking, it just doesn’t resonate with the Republican base who oppose any bill that may offer “amnesty” to illegal immigrants. (They favor amnesty for Scooter Libby, however, even though he was found guilty of committing federal felonies.)
The latest Republican hopeful to enter the presidential derby, former U.S. Senator and current TV actor Fred Thompson, denounced the immigration bill by charging that the United States is “beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world”.
Lou Dobbs of CNN has been waging a daily attack on illegal aliens by constantly injecting inflammatory facts that turn out to be false. “The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans,” Dobbs announced on his April 14, 2005 TV program. A CNN correspondent then came on and said that “There were about 900 cases of leprosy in the last 40 years. There have been 7,000 cases in the past three years.” Dobbs has repeated this charge on his daily TV show.
It turns out that while there have been 7,000 cases of leprosy (Hansen’s Disease), they have occurred in the last 30 years, not the last three. The peak year, according to the National Hansen’s Disease Program, was in 1983 when there were 456 reported cases. In 2006, there were 137 cases.
This week The New York Times reports that “the left-for-dead Senate immigration bill should be up off the slab, lurching toward a final vote.” It had been bogged down with “poison pill” amendments intended to kill it but it has now been repackaged with an additional $4.4 billion package for border security, “a super-heavy-duty enforcement” gesture to the anti-amnesty minutemen constituents. Instead of hundreds of amendments, the bill will now just face 10 before the vote. Here are some of them:
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) has an amendment to send applicants for legalization on a “touchback” trip abroad before getting their Z visas, a proposal that may work for 8 million Mexicans but not for the 600,000 Filipinos. The amendment of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nevada) would prevent those who paid into Social Security as illegal immigrants from ever getting that money back, and cut off their young children from death benefits. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) would seek to require that all state and local laws that forbid government employees to ask people’s immigration status be stricken before other provisions of the bill take effect. Sen. Christopher Bond (R- Missouri) would prohibit holders of Z visas from ever getting green cards.
And then there’s Sen. Lindsey Graham, whom the New York Times previously reported as having “spoken movingly about the need for reasonable, decent treatment of immigrants, especially immigrant families.”
Because he is up for reelection next year, he has now become “Sensenbrennerized”, proposing the killer amendment, to criminalize aliens who overstay their visas, subject to minimum 60-day prison sentences.
The New York Times counseled that “the only workable immigration reform will be one that values being smart over being reflexively tough. It will be one that combines enforcement at the border and in the workplace with a path to legal status, even citizenship, for the immigrants already here, and a lawful and orderly flow of future workers. That’s the dream, anyway. Congress had a bill like that once, a while back, but the dream is in great danger of slipping away.”
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
1 of 1
Lillian Guerrero
Jun 20, 2007 07:26:00
Some comments on this column:
(1) To make an analogy between illegal immigration ahd the Iraq war is disingenuous. The 12 to 20 million aliens we are dealing with now came here in violation of immigration laws. No question about that. The Iraq War, on the other hand, was not illegal, having been authorized by Congress on the intelligence available at the time. In retrospect, there were flaws in that intelligence, but that does not make it illegal. Whether to withdraw now or not is irrelevant to this debate.
(2) I get the feeling Mr. Rodis wants to legalize these aliens. Does he, as a lawyer, still believe in the rule of law? Is it not clear that amnesty would be rewarding illegal behavior?
(3) Those amendments offerred by Senators Hutchinson, Ensign, Bond, Coleman and Graham are quite reasonable. In fact, Atty. Rodis has not mentioned amendments rejected by Democrats that would deport criminals and those 700,000 absconders who continue to hide despite court orders.
(4) Atty. Rodis again fails to mention that this immigration bill is opposed not only by Republicans, but by Democrats as well. That's true in all the polls.
(5) Lou Dobbs, a liberal on CNN, is singled out in this column for a minor error, but not for his cogent arguments he has been telling us for the past one year. He has been helped in this regard by "talk radio" which Trent Lott recently accused of ruling this country. No, Senator Lott, those are the voices of most Americans on this issue, not just of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
(6) Lastly, Atty. Rodis invokes a statement from the NY Times about a dream that now has become a bubble. The Times, once a paper of record, has become a liberal voice, printing all the news it wants to print, whether unfit as long as it adheres to its agenda. It has become less and less credible with its propaganda and its continually declining circulation.
The compromise bill may have been revived, but its chances of being resuscitated successfully are nil. There just is no way to force it down the throats of most Americans, unless you happen to love Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid.
Inside the beltway
Inside the beltway
Rodel Rodis, Jun 27, 2007
Because I have always been interested in developments in the Philippines, it has been my regular practice to read the online Manila dailies, especially the commentaries of Manila’s columnists. What I have found over the years is that they mostly write about the same issues. It’s as if they all talk to the same sources, meet regularly with each other to discuss the same issues, read each other’s columns and then write about what has already been written.
To virtually all of them, Metro Manila is the center of the universe, not just the center of Luzon or the Philippines. Nothing else matters outside of their narrow spectrum.
Yesterday’s Manila columns, for example, were all about the disclosure by outgoing House Rep. Herminio Teves that members of the House Commission on Appointments (“Gang of 8”) regularly extort money from presidential appointees who wish to secure the constitutionally mandated confirmation from their committee. Because of this practice, we are told, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo regularly extends the interim appointments of her cabinet members.
Manila’s columnists generally don’t cover what is happening elsewhere in the world except for the late Maximo Soliven who regularly traveled the world and wrote about his travel experiences.
Perhaps because they don’t have Soliven’s resources and can’t afford the luxury of travel, even within the Philippines, Manila’s columnists write only about what is around them, in Metro Manila.
In the U.S., that mindset is referred to as “inside the beltway” which is a phrase used to characterize Washington D.C. politics from the viewpoint of political insiders within the capital. It refers geographically to the Capital Beltway highway infrastructure (Interstate 495) which encircles Washington D.C.
When I complained about this myopia to friends in Manila when I was there last December, I was told that Manila’s columnists can’t survive on the salaries they receive as columnists and that many of them, not all, regularly receive subsidies from politicians who desire favorable news about them to regularly appear or who want to ensure that unfavorable reports about them don’t ever see the light of day.
I wondered why none of Manila’s columnists ever wrote about the plea bargain that Michael Ray Aquino and Leandro Aragoncillo entered into before the elections to spare re-electionist Sen. Panfilo Lacson the embarrassment of a public trial where his central role in the espionage of FBI documents would be revealed. It has also not been disclosed that Aquino may yet withdraw his plea bargain now that the U.S. Attorney in the case is seeking an eight-year sentence for his role in the espionage operation.
Google Manila’s dailies and you won’t find any mention of the Senate immigration bill that is being hotly debated in Washington D.C. right now. This is a bill with enormous implications for Filipinos and for the Philippines. At least 400,000 Filipinos in the Philippines with approved immigrant visas for the U.S. will be impacted by this bill as well as at least 600,000 “overstaying tourists” (TNTs) who are classified as “illegal aliens” in the U.S.
Even the war in Iraq is now ignored by the columnists after the Philippines pulled out of the “Coalition of the Willing” even though more than a dozen Filipino Americans have already died there.
It is only the print media that is myopic, however. The television media, notably ABS-CBN, provides the Philippines with glimpses of the outside world, the world outside the Manila beltway. Its “Balitang America”, which offers stories about Filipinos in the U.S., is not only shown to the 260,000 subscribers in North America but also to Filipinos in the Philippines. It also has “Balitang Europe” and “Balitang Middle East” which also carry news and stories about Filipinos living in those areas of the world.
One Manila columnist shared the comments of a reader, Grace Abella Zata, who wrote a six-page analysis of the Philippine media. Democracy, she wrote, “only works in a situation where people have access to information. It is in this context that we can assess if truly, media has taken on an activist role.”
“Many people, myself included, believe that Philippine media has failed miserably in this regard. In fact, media sets a mindset that focuses on little else but the skirmishes between and among the members of the political elite. Perhaps this is why people say, “pare-pareho lang naman ang mga iyan.” Media does not encourage people to go beyond the superficial and discuss the substantial issues, and to hold their leaders accountable for strategic and well-thought out plans and initiatives and results that impact on the quality of their lives…”
“I am afraid many members of media are probably lazy [do not study issues in depth] or biased, prompting one blogger to call politics entertainment about the ugly. News on the front page [and commentaries by “semi-literate” radio commentators] concentrate too much on the political angle, rather than on improving the economic literacy of people.”
“Instead of devoting 80 percent to 90 percent of the front page to the dynamics of the political power play, media’s perspective in a country such as ours should be: We are all in this together; we need to solve the problem of poverty and therefore we should be evaluating how good plans are, whether they are on track, whether they are producing desired results, whether resources are used properly. These should be the context of reports on corruption and exchanges between politicians, rather than merely playing up the latest skirmish between Ping and whoever, like it were the word war between Ruffa and Yilmaz.”
I hear you loud and clear, Grace.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
1 of 1
Purita Guinto
Jun 27, 2007 11:22:37
I don't read online the Manila dailies as often as Mr. Rodis does, but I do so enough to agree, for the most part, with his opinion of the printed media there.
Two of the top columnists back home, Conrado de Quiros and Randy David, for example, incessantly bash President Arroyo while giving her no credit for her good work. And so do other opinion makers. It gets to a point where reading other pieces, as Mr. Rodis had seen, becomes monotonous. They all have a similar agenda, but nothing constructive.
There are exceptions, of course. Juan Mercado, whose columns appear in the PN periodically, writes on a variety of topics, not just on politics. So do Raul Pangalangan, former dean of UP College of Law, and Carmen Guerrero-Nakpil. They are not wedded to any narrow and constricted point of view.
If it's true, as alleged by Mr. Rodis in this column, that a number of journalists there are on the payroll of politicians, then that would explain the singular theme around which these hacks operate. That sounds like an Orwellian world, where lies are paraded as truth,
and where integrity is sacrificed in the service of political hucksterism.
We need journalists in the tradition of the late Teodoro Locsin and Jose Burgos, Jr. Both understood the role of the press, and courageously
defied the Marcos myrmidons and their bullying tactics during that brutal dictatorship. Both became icons for their bold and exemplary job in their profession.
There is a reason why the press has been called the Fourth Estate, which is that it has the power to examine the work of the government and its three branches, report it to the citizens, and offer suggestions on how to make things better for the country. It's not enough to focus on personalities and to recycle their perceived faults. Broadening that focus and eschewing the negative would be welcome changes.
All that, of course, would be meaningless if journalists continue to carouse with and remain servile to their patrons - the politicians. It's as if these opinion makers are all holed up in a gulag, which blinds them to what is happening elsewhere.
A myopic world, as Mr. Rodis describes it so well. Filipinos deserve better.
Rodel Rodis, Jun 27, 2007
Because I have always been interested in developments in the Philippines, it has been my regular practice to read the online Manila dailies, especially the commentaries of Manila’s columnists. What I have found over the years is that they mostly write about the same issues. It’s as if they all talk to the same sources, meet regularly with each other to discuss the same issues, read each other’s columns and then write about what has already been written.
To virtually all of them, Metro Manila is the center of the universe, not just the center of Luzon or the Philippines. Nothing else matters outside of their narrow spectrum.
Yesterday’s Manila columns, for example, were all about the disclosure by outgoing House Rep. Herminio Teves that members of the House Commission on Appointments (“Gang of 8”) regularly extort money from presidential appointees who wish to secure the constitutionally mandated confirmation from their committee. Because of this practice, we are told, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo regularly extends the interim appointments of her cabinet members.
Manila’s columnists generally don’t cover what is happening elsewhere in the world except for the late Maximo Soliven who regularly traveled the world and wrote about his travel experiences.
Perhaps because they don’t have Soliven’s resources and can’t afford the luxury of travel, even within the Philippines, Manila’s columnists write only about what is around them, in Metro Manila.
In the U.S., that mindset is referred to as “inside the beltway” which is a phrase used to characterize Washington D.C. politics from the viewpoint of political insiders within the capital. It refers geographically to the Capital Beltway highway infrastructure (Interstate 495) which encircles Washington D.C.
When I complained about this myopia to friends in Manila when I was there last December, I was told that Manila’s columnists can’t survive on the salaries they receive as columnists and that many of them, not all, regularly receive subsidies from politicians who desire favorable news about them to regularly appear or who want to ensure that unfavorable reports about them don’t ever see the light of day.
I wondered why none of Manila’s columnists ever wrote about the plea bargain that Michael Ray Aquino and Leandro Aragoncillo entered into before the elections to spare re-electionist Sen. Panfilo Lacson the embarrassment of a public trial where his central role in the espionage of FBI documents would be revealed. It has also not been disclosed that Aquino may yet withdraw his plea bargain now that the U.S. Attorney in the case is seeking an eight-year sentence for his role in the espionage operation.
Google Manila’s dailies and you won’t find any mention of the Senate immigration bill that is being hotly debated in Washington D.C. right now. This is a bill with enormous implications for Filipinos and for the Philippines. At least 400,000 Filipinos in the Philippines with approved immigrant visas for the U.S. will be impacted by this bill as well as at least 600,000 “overstaying tourists” (TNTs) who are classified as “illegal aliens” in the U.S.
Even the war in Iraq is now ignored by the columnists after the Philippines pulled out of the “Coalition of the Willing” even though more than a dozen Filipino Americans have already died there.
It is only the print media that is myopic, however. The television media, notably ABS-CBN, provides the Philippines with glimpses of the outside world, the world outside the Manila beltway. Its “Balitang America”, which offers stories about Filipinos in the U.S., is not only shown to the 260,000 subscribers in North America but also to Filipinos in the Philippines. It also has “Balitang Europe” and “Balitang Middle East” which also carry news and stories about Filipinos living in those areas of the world.
One Manila columnist shared the comments of a reader, Grace Abella Zata, who wrote a six-page analysis of the Philippine media. Democracy, she wrote, “only works in a situation where people have access to information. It is in this context that we can assess if truly, media has taken on an activist role.”
“Many people, myself included, believe that Philippine media has failed miserably in this regard. In fact, media sets a mindset that focuses on little else but the skirmishes between and among the members of the political elite. Perhaps this is why people say, “pare-pareho lang naman ang mga iyan.” Media does not encourage people to go beyond the superficial and discuss the substantial issues, and to hold their leaders accountable for strategic and well-thought out plans and initiatives and results that impact on the quality of their lives…”
“I am afraid many members of media are probably lazy [do not study issues in depth] or biased, prompting one blogger to call politics entertainment about the ugly. News on the front page [and commentaries by “semi-literate” radio commentators] concentrate too much on the political angle, rather than on improving the economic literacy of people.”
“Instead of devoting 80 percent to 90 percent of the front page to the dynamics of the political power play, media’s perspective in a country such as ours should be: We are all in this together; we need to solve the problem of poverty and therefore we should be evaluating how good plans are, whether they are on track, whether they are producing desired results, whether resources are used properly. These should be the context of reports on corruption and exchanges between politicians, rather than merely playing up the latest skirmish between Ping and whoever, like it were the word war between Ruffa and Yilmaz.”
I hear you loud and clear, Grace.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
1 of 1
Purita Guinto
Jun 27, 2007 11:22:37
I don't read online the Manila dailies as often as Mr. Rodis does, but I do so enough to agree, for the most part, with his opinion of the printed media there.
Two of the top columnists back home, Conrado de Quiros and Randy David, for example, incessantly bash President Arroyo while giving her no credit for her good work. And so do other opinion makers. It gets to a point where reading other pieces, as Mr. Rodis had seen, becomes monotonous. They all have a similar agenda, but nothing constructive.
There are exceptions, of course. Juan Mercado, whose columns appear in the PN periodically, writes on a variety of topics, not just on politics. So do Raul Pangalangan, former dean of UP College of Law, and Carmen Guerrero-Nakpil. They are not wedded to any narrow and constricted point of view.
If it's true, as alleged by Mr. Rodis in this column, that a number of journalists there are on the payroll of politicians, then that would explain the singular theme around which these hacks operate. That sounds like an Orwellian world, where lies are paraded as truth,
and where integrity is sacrificed in the service of political hucksterism.
We need journalists in the tradition of the late Teodoro Locsin and Jose Burgos, Jr. Both understood the role of the press, and courageously
defied the Marcos myrmidons and their bullying tactics during that brutal dictatorship. Both became icons for their bold and exemplary job in their profession.
There is a reason why the press has been called the Fourth Estate, which is that it has the power to examine the work of the government and its three branches, report it to the citizens, and offer suggestions on how to make things better for the country. It's not enough to focus on personalities and to recycle their perceived faults. Broadening that focus and eschewing the negative would be welcome changes.
All that, of course, would be meaningless if journalists continue to carouse with and remain servile to their patrons - the politicians. It's as if these opinion makers are all holed up in a gulag, which blinds them to what is happening elsewhere.
A myopic world, as Mr. Rodis describes it so well. Filipinos deserve better.
66 years after the promise
66 years after the promise
Rodel Rodis, Jul 25, 2007
(Under severe time pressure last week, I wrote an unedited 1800 word essay on the origins of the battle for Filipino veterans equity. This week, I had the opportunity to review and edit it, cutting it down to 688 words in my own private battle for brevity. Here it is.)
Sixty-six years ago this week on July 26, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt issued a military order incorporating Philippine Commonwealth soldiers into the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East (Usaffe) pledging that conscripted Filipinos would be entitled to the same benefits as American soldiers, including the right to apply for U.S. citizenship under a 1940 law.
When they were no longer needed, however, Congress passed the Rescission Act on February 18, 1946 decreeing that Filipino Usaffe soldiers are not be entitled to U.S. veterans’ benefits.
Earlier, in September 1945, the U.S. Attorney General revoked the authority of the naturalization officer at the U.S. Embassy in Manila to process the citizenship applications of Filipino Usaffe soldiers. The U.S. Embassy only began processing their applications in August of 1946, with only four months to the cut-off date, allowing just 4,000 Filipinos – out of 200,000 eligible – to apply for and receive U.S. citizenship.
It was not until a Filipino veteran named Marciano Haw Hibi filed his petition for naturalization in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco on September 13, 1967 that a challenge was made to the government’s actions in 1946.
The U.S. government should be “estopped” from denying his application, Haw Hibi argued, because its “affirmative misconduct” in revoking the naturalization officer’s authority caused the delay. When his petition was denied, Haw Hibi appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in a 6-3 decision on October 23, 1973, affirmed the lower court.
The dissenting Supreme Court justices criticized the majority for ignoring “the deliberate – and successful – effort on the part of agents of the Executive Branch to frustrate the congressional purpose and to deny substantive rights to Filipinos.”
The dissent inspired many veterans to apply for naturalization. In 1976, the cases of 68 veterans were collectively assigned to District Court Judge Charles Renfrew, who ruled in their favor after hearing their impassioned pleas.
After the government initially appealed the Renfrew decision, the administration of President Jimmy Carter withdrew it, allowing the 68 veterans to be sworn in as U.S. citizens.
Following Renfrew, hundreds of “Hibi veterans” filed their applications, causing the Carter Administration to reconsider its position and deny the veterans’ naturalization applications in 1978. The District Court reversed the INS in Mendoza v. INS, ruling that the government was “collaterally estopped” because it withdrew its appeal of the Renfrew decision.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, however, it unanimously denied Mendoza’s petition on January 10, 1984.
The Supreme Court confronted the Filipino veterans issue again in INS v. Pangilinan in 1988, this time on the veterans’ contention that federal courts, as courts of equity, can provide an equitable remedy. The Court ruled unanimously that courts do not have the “equitable power to confer citizenship in violation of the limitations imposed by Congress in the exercise of its exclusive constitutional authority over naturalization.”
The Pangilinan denial effectively ended all efforts by Filipino veterans to obtain relief through the courts, shifting the battleground to Congress. Starting in 1986, members of the U.S. Congress, led by Sen. Daniel Inouye and Rep. Tom Campbell, sponsored bills to grant naturalization to Filipino veterans.
To secure its inclusion in the Immigration Reform Act of 1990, Rep. Campbell assured his colleagues that citizenship would not make the Filipino veterans “eligible for federal benefits which they do not receive.”
With that assurance, Congress included veterans naturalization in the bill, which was signed into law by Pres. George H. Bush on November 30, 1990. The naturalization provision stipulated that its enactment “shall not be construed as affecting the rights, privileges or benefits” of the Filipino veterans, thereby preserving the Rescission Act.
For the next 17 years, the veterans lobbied for passage of the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill, which would rescind the Rescission Act. Last week, the House Veterans Affairs Committee voted to send the veterans’ bill (HR 760) to the full House for a vote. A counterpart bill (S. 1315) in the Senate is also headed for a Senate vote.
Now, 66 years after Roosevelt made his promise, which was betrayed by the Rescission Act, Filipino veterans may finally see his promise redeemed.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
Rodel Rodis, Jul 25, 2007
(Under severe time pressure last week, I wrote an unedited 1800 word essay on the origins of the battle for Filipino veterans equity. This week, I had the opportunity to review and edit it, cutting it down to 688 words in my own private battle for brevity. Here it is.)
Sixty-six years ago this week on July 26, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt issued a military order incorporating Philippine Commonwealth soldiers into the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East (Usaffe) pledging that conscripted Filipinos would be entitled to the same benefits as American soldiers, including the right to apply for U.S. citizenship under a 1940 law.
When they were no longer needed, however, Congress passed the Rescission Act on February 18, 1946 decreeing that Filipino Usaffe soldiers are not be entitled to U.S. veterans’ benefits.
Earlier, in September 1945, the U.S. Attorney General revoked the authority of the naturalization officer at the U.S. Embassy in Manila to process the citizenship applications of Filipino Usaffe soldiers. The U.S. Embassy only began processing their applications in August of 1946, with only four months to the cut-off date, allowing just 4,000 Filipinos – out of 200,000 eligible – to apply for and receive U.S. citizenship.
It was not until a Filipino veteran named Marciano Haw Hibi filed his petition for naturalization in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco on September 13, 1967 that a challenge was made to the government’s actions in 1946.
The U.S. government should be “estopped” from denying his application, Haw Hibi argued, because its “affirmative misconduct” in revoking the naturalization officer’s authority caused the delay. When his petition was denied, Haw Hibi appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in a 6-3 decision on October 23, 1973, affirmed the lower court.
The dissenting Supreme Court justices criticized the majority for ignoring “the deliberate – and successful – effort on the part of agents of the Executive Branch to frustrate the congressional purpose and to deny substantive rights to Filipinos.”
The dissent inspired many veterans to apply for naturalization. In 1976, the cases of 68 veterans were collectively assigned to District Court Judge Charles Renfrew, who ruled in their favor after hearing their impassioned pleas.
After the government initially appealed the Renfrew decision, the administration of President Jimmy Carter withdrew it, allowing the 68 veterans to be sworn in as U.S. citizens.
Following Renfrew, hundreds of “Hibi veterans” filed their applications, causing the Carter Administration to reconsider its position and deny the veterans’ naturalization applications in 1978. The District Court reversed the INS in Mendoza v. INS, ruling that the government was “collaterally estopped” because it withdrew its appeal of the Renfrew decision.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, however, it unanimously denied Mendoza’s petition on January 10, 1984.
The Supreme Court confronted the Filipino veterans issue again in INS v. Pangilinan in 1988, this time on the veterans’ contention that federal courts, as courts of equity, can provide an equitable remedy. The Court ruled unanimously that courts do not have the “equitable power to confer citizenship in violation of the limitations imposed by Congress in the exercise of its exclusive constitutional authority over naturalization.”
The Pangilinan denial effectively ended all efforts by Filipino veterans to obtain relief through the courts, shifting the battleground to Congress. Starting in 1986, members of the U.S. Congress, led by Sen. Daniel Inouye and Rep. Tom Campbell, sponsored bills to grant naturalization to Filipino veterans.
To secure its inclusion in the Immigration Reform Act of 1990, Rep. Campbell assured his colleagues that citizenship would not make the Filipino veterans “eligible for federal benefits which they do not receive.”
With that assurance, Congress included veterans naturalization in the bill, which was signed into law by Pres. George H. Bush on November 30, 1990. The naturalization provision stipulated that its enactment “shall not be construed as affecting the rights, privileges or benefits” of the Filipino veterans, thereby preserving the Rescission Act.
For the next 17 years, the veterans lobbied for passage of the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill, which would rescind the Rescission Act. Last week, the House Veterans Affairs Committee voted to send the veterans’ bill (HR 760) to the full House for a vote. A counterpart bill (S. 1315) in the Senate is also headed for a Senate vote.
Now, 66 years after Roosevelt made his promise, which was betrayed by the Rescission Act, Filipino veterans may finally see his promise redeemed.
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.
NOPE, NOPE, NOPE
GLOBAL NETWORKING
NOPE, NOPE, NOPE
By Rodel Rodis
SAN FRANCISCO, CA - When Malacanang announced a week ago on October 24, 2007 that it would conduct a “national survey to get a feel of the public pulse on the issue”, I couldn’t wait for this column to appear to express my opinion on the proposed presidential pardon for convicted plunderer Joseph “Erap” Estrada.
But would President Arroyo wait at least a week before she announced her decision? There was hope. The day before the national survey plan was announced, Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno (who held the same post under Estrada), informed the press that he expected Estrada to be pardoned and sent home before Christmas. Estrada himself had expressed the belief that he would be pardoned before November 7, the date he would begin his sentence in the New Bilibid Prison.
So there would be time, time for NOPE, the NO to Pardon for Estrada movement, to gather momentum, to prevent this “mockery of justice” from occurring. Well, not quite. Barely two days after she made the announcement, Pres. Arroyo granted “absolute presidential pardon” to Estrada citing his age (70), his “confinement” for 6 ½ years at his Tanay villa, and the need for “national reconciliation” as reasons for her decision.
It was laughable to consider Estrada’s stay at his Tanay Graceland “confinement”. With the funds he plundered, he built an extravagant mansion in Tanay, complete with several lagoons, a waterfall, a presidential museum, a film library, a mini-theater, a garage for 20 cars, a stable for horses, a riding park, an FPJ cowboy bar, a fishing village, a Muslim hall and a presidential mausoleum. It was described as “a veritable theme park worthy of Disneyland.”
The pardon had the full support of the Iglesia ni Kristo (INK) and influential members of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP). It had the full backing of former President Cory Aquino who said she was "happy" about the pardon. "I pray that as a free man, former president Estrada will harness the lessons he had learned from the sufferings he had endured, and continue to serve our less fortunate brothers and sisters." [Cory, just exactly what “sufferings” did he endure and what “lessons” did he learn?]
Unlike Cory, Estrada’s champion in the CBCP, Cebu Archbishop Ricardo Cardinal Vidal, at least had the decency to ask that before Estrada is pardoned, he “must first acknowledge his sins, seek forgiveness and make amends for damages done.”
Estrada would do no such thing. At the celebration at his Polk Street mansion in San Juan after his official release, he defiantly declared: “I may have committed mistakes in my career in public service, but I assure you that corruption is not one of them.”
Estrada has always narrowly defined corruption (like Pres. Bush redefining “torture”) as directly stealing from the nation’s coffers. Thus, receiving billions of pesos in “Jueteng” (illegal gambling) payoffs was not corruption by his definition and neither was collecting a 10% commission (P180-M) from pressuring two government corporations (GSI and SSS) to buy P2-B pesos worth of Belle Corporation stocks, which are now worthless.
Dennis Villa-Ignacio, the Philippine Special Prosecutor who spent 6 ½ years building the case against Estrada, claimed that the pardon was done with “indecent” haste, lacked transparency, deviated from procedures and overlooked a constitutional provision. The Philippine Constitution provides for presidential pardons “except in cases of impeachment” (Article 7, Section 19).
Villa-Ignacio and his team of low-paid government lawyers were pitted against the most expensive lawyers Estrada could buy, yet they prevailed in the end (well, not quite)…
Supporters of Pres. Arroyo's pardon of Estrada argued that it would neutralize his supporters, not realizing that while his supporters may be a mile wide, they are only an inch deep. Just before the Estrada verdict was to be announced, followers of Estrada claimed that they would draw hundreds of thousands of people to protest a guilty verdict. When the guilty verdict was announced, there was barely a whimper of protest.
Estrada’s supporters in the Senate are not likely to back down from going after Arroyo. Estrada’s son, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, declared that notwithstanding the pardon, he would still continue to address the president as “Mrs. Arroyo” because she is not a legitimate ruler, he said.
Far from appeasing her enemies, she has instead alienated her allies. Former President Fidel Ramos predicted that the pardon could lead to Mrs. Arroyo’s own downfall. He said the pardon was “a terrible calamity to the great, great, great majority of the Filipino people who have suffered from the plunder.”
One of her few supporters in the Senate, Sen. Dick Gordon, described the pardon as a choice “to survive rather than be right, rather than be just. It's not even a question of mercy. It's a question of survival for her. It's transactional leadership at its purest form.” Her other Senate ally, Sen. Joker Arroyo, lamented the President's "lightning and tasteless haste" in pardoning Estrada.
When Malacanang asked for the people’s “pulse” on the issue, the low-paid teachers of Miriam College (formerly Maryknoll) drafted and sent a letter to Malacanang: “For political expediency, legislators and Malacañang offered pardon for the unrepentant and arrogant convict; one who shamelessly plundered and disgraced our beloved nation has been absolved of his crime by President Macapagal-Arroyo who herself is hounded by so many scandals.
"Miriam College stands for truth, justice, peace and integrity. Truth was impartially bared with the Sandiganbayan decision. Justice will not be served if Estrada escapes his sentence. And peace will be a long time coming because with this precedent, grafters will continue to rob our country, unafraid of the full force of the law; and socioeconomic disparities in our country will worsen.
"Education is extremely difficult when the school teaches good citizenship while the country’s leaders make a mockery of it. For the sake of our children and our future, pardon should not be given without Estrada (not his lawyers) apologizing to the Filipino people and without justice being rendered first.”
Nope! Nope! Nope!
Send comments to Rodel50@aol. com or send letters directly to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800.
NOPE, NOPE, NOPE
By Rodel Rodis
SAN FRANCISCO, CA - When Malacanang announced a week ago on October 24, 2007 that it would conduct a “national survey to get a feel of the public pulse on the issue”, I couldn’t wait for this column to appear to express my opinion on the proposed presidential pardon for convicted plunderer Joseph “Erap” Estrada.
But would President Arroyo wait at least a week before she announced her decision? There was hope. The day before the national survey plan was announced, Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno (who held the same post under Estrada), informed the press that he expected Estrada to be pardoned and sent home before Christmas. Estrada himself had expressed the belief that he would be pardoned before November 7, the date he would begin his sentence in the New Bilibid Prison.
So there would be time, time for NOPE, the NO to Pardon for Estrada movement, to gather momentum, to prevent this “mockery of justice” from occurring. Well, not quite. Barely two days after she made the announcement, Pres. Arroyo granted “absolute presidential pardon” to Estrada citing his age (70), his “confinement” for 6 ½ years at his Tanay villa, and the need for “national reconciliation” as reasons for her decision.
It was laughable to consider Estrada’s stay at his Tanay Graceland “confinement”. With the funds he plundered, he built an extravagant mansion in Tanay, complete with several lagoons, a waterfall, a presidential museum, a film library, a mini-theater, a garage for 20 cars, a stable for horses, a riding park, an FPJ cowboy bar, a fishing village, a Muslim hall and a presidential mausoleum. It was described as “a veritable theme park worthy of Disneyland.”
The pardon had the full support of the Iglesia ni Kristo (INK) and influential members of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP). It had the full backing of former President Cory Aquino who said she was "happy" about the pardon. "I pray that as a free man, former president Estrada will harness the lessons he had learned from the sufferings he had endured, and continue to serve our less fortunate brothers and sisters." [Cory, just exactly what “sufferings” did he endure and what “lessons” did he learn?]
Unlike Cory, Estrada’s champion in the CBCP, Cebu Archbishop Ricardo Cardinal Vidal, at least had the decency to ask that before Estrada is pardoned, he “must first acknowledge his sins, seek forgiveness and make amends for damages done.”
Estrada would do no such thing. At the celebration at his Polk Street mansion in San Juan after his official release, he defiantly declared: “I may have committed mistakes in my career in public service, but I assure you that corruption is not one of them.”
Estrada has always narrowly defined corruption (like Pres. Bush redefining “torture”) as directly stealing from the nation’s coffers. Thus, receiving billions of pesos in “Jueteng” (illegal gambling) payoffs was not corruption by his definition and neither was collecting a 10% commission (P180-M) from pressuring two government corporations (GSI and SSS) to buy P2-B pesos worth of Belle Corporation stocks, which are now worthless.
Dennis Villa-Ignacio, the Philippine Special Prosecutor who spent 6 ½ years building the case against Estrada, claimed that the pardon was done with “indecent” haste, lacked transparency, deviated from procedures and overlooked a constitutional provision. The Philippine Constitution provides for presidential pardons “except in cases of impeachment” (Article 7, Section 19).
Villa-Ignacio and his team of low-paid government lawyers were pitted against the most expensive lawyers Estrada could buy, yet they prevailed in the end (well, not quite)…
Supporters of Pres. Arroyo's pardon of Estrada argued that it would neutralize his supporters, not realizing that while his supporters may be a mile wide, they are only an inch deep. Just before the Estrada verdict was to be announced, followers of Estrada claimed that they would draw hundreds of thousands of people to protest a guilty verdict. When the guilty verdict was announced, there was barely a whimper of protest.
Estrada’s supporters in the Senate are not likely to back down from going after Arroyo. Estrada’s son, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, declared that notwithstanding the pardon, he would still continue to address the president as “Mrs. Arroyo” because she is not a legitimate ruler, he said.
Far from appeasing her enemies, she has instead alienated her allies. Former President Fidel Ramos predicted that the pardon could lead to Mrs. Arroyo’s own downfall. He said the pardon was “a terrible calamity to the great, great, great majority of the Filipino people who have suffered from the plunder.”
One of her few supporters in the Senate, Sen. Dick Gordon, described the pardon as a choice “to survive rather than be right, rather than be just. It's not even a question of mercy. It's a question of survival for her. It's transactional leadership at its purest form.” Her other Senate ally, Sen. Joker Arroyo, lamented the President's "lightning and tasteless haste" in pardoning Estrada.
When Malacanang asked for the people’s “pulse” on the issue, the low-paid teachers of Miriam College (formerly Maryknoll) drafted and sent a letter to Malacanang: “For political expediency, legislators and Malacañang offered pardon for the unrepentant and arrogant convict; one who shamelessly plundered and disgraced our beloved nation has been absolved of his crime by President Macapagal-Arroyo who herself is hounded by so many scandals.
"Miriam College stands for truth, justice, peace and integrity. Truth was impartially bared with the Sandiganbayan decision. Justice will not be served if Estrada escapes his sentence. And peace will be a long time coming because with this precedent, grafters will continue to rob our country, unafraid of the full force of the law; and socioeconomic disparities in our country will worsen.
"Education is extremely difficult when the school teaches good citizenship while the country’s leaders make a mockery of it. For the sake of our children and our future, pardon should not be given without Estrada (not his lawyers) apologizing to the Filipino people and without justice being rendered first.”
Nope! Nope! Nope!
Send comments to Rodel50@aol. com or send letters directly to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
