--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/ These institutions have acquired too much economic and political power, endangering our economy and our political process. KEY ACTIONS Introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” which would break up the big banks and prohibit any too-big-to-fail institutions from accessing the Federal Reserve’s discount facilities or using insured deposits for risky activities. Led the fight in 1999 defending Glass-Steagall provisions which prevented banks (especially “too big to fail” ones) from gambling with customers’ money, and currently is a co-sponsor of the Elizabeth Warren/John McCain bill to reinstate those provisions. Has proposed a financial transaction tax which will reduce risky and unproductive high-speed trading and other forms of Wall Street speculation; proceeds would be used to provide debt-free public college education. Is co-sponsoring Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s bill to end Wall Street’s practice of paying big bonuses to bank executives who take senior-level government jobs. Introduced a tax on Wall Street speculation to make public colleges and universities tuition-free Supports capping credit card interest rates at 15%. Sponsored an amendment calling for an audit the Federal Reserve. The audit found that far more had been spent in the Wall Street bailout than previously disclosed, and that considerable funds had been spent to bail out foreign corporations. Warned about the risks of deregulation eight years before the fiscal crisis of 2008. Has proposed limiting the ability of bankers to get rich from taxpayer bailouts of their institutions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-immigration/ Bernie Sanders has said that we are a “nation of immigrants. That is, in fact, the strength of America.” Given this view, he believes the United States must create an immigration system that invites greater innovation, diversity, and economic opportunity for both American-born citizens and the people who want to make this land their home. Bernie supports immigration reform that will address the legal status of the 11 million undocumented people in our country, protect American jobs by way of visa reform, secure the border, and protect undocumented workers from labor exploitation. Path to Citizenship: We ought to provide a path to citizenship for people from many different countries. DREAM Act: Supports the path toward permanent residency for young, undocumented immigrants. Visa Reform: Reject the exploitation of workers and the use of visas for cheap, foreign labor. Increase opportunities for qualified individuals to take steps towards permanent residency. Border Security: We can and must secure borders without building a fence.
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-immigration/ Bernie is very concerned with the exploitation of undocumented workers and their standard of living. He believes that such immigrants “have been routinely cheated out of wages, held virtually captive by employers who have seized their documents, forced to live in unspeakable inhumane conditions and denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries.” In a July 2015 speech, Bernie highlighted that “undocumented workers are doing the extremely difficult work of harvesting our crops, building our homes, cooking our meals, and caring for our children. They are part of the fabric of America.” Given that Bernie believes undocumented workers are already part of the nation’s “fabric,” they should have a path to citizenship that will allow them to be fully participating members of American society and contributors to its economy. “Bringing undocumented workers out of the shadows will make it more difficult for employers to undercut the wages and benefits of all workers.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-immigration/#border-security Bernie does notsupport an “open borders policy,” preferring to focus on a path to citizenship for immigrants already in the United States. But shouldn’t we be securing our border? The idea that we have hoards of undocumented immigrants pouring across the border is a mythpropagated by racist, right-wing media and political actors. These two graphics from the PEW Research Center show this very clearly: How has Bernie voted in terms of border security legislation? In 2005, Bernie voted against the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Act, which would have allowed the Secretary of Homeland Security to “take all appropriate actions” to maintain control over the U.S borders. In 2006 he voted against the Secure Fence Act, which aimed to build a fence along the Mexican border. Later that year, Bernie voted against the Immigration Law Enforcement Act, which would have given local police departments free reign “to investigate, identify, arrest, detail, or transfer to federal custody” any undocumented immigrants. In 2013, Bernie voted for a comprehensive immigration reform bill called the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. This bill, which passed in the Senate but failed in the House, would have provided a way for undocumented immigrants to gain a type of legal status that set a clear path to citizenship. It also would have added as many as 40,000 border patrol agents and encouraged a points-based system that would award points towards entry based on education, employment, and other factors. In 2015, Bernie welcomed the U.S. and Canada Border Pact, emphasizing the need for the borders to be safe and secure while also working to “preserve the centuries-old friendship between our nations and the ability of Americans and Canadians to freely cross the border.”
In 2013, Bernie voted for a comprehensive immigration reform bill called the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. This bill, which passed in the Senate but failed in the House, would have provided a way for undocumented immigrants to gain a type of legal status that set a clear path to citizenship. It also would have added as many as 40,000 border patrol agents and encouraged a points-based system that would award points towards entry based on education, employment, and other factors.
Details of the Proposed Merit-based Visa System under the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act If the currently proposed Senate bill passes as written, 5 years after its enactment there would be created a merit-based visa system that would award green cards based on a holistic assessment of an alien’s skills, education, work history, ties to the United States, knowledge of the English language, business activities, community service, and country of nationality. The merit-based system would start out with 120,000 annual visas and would potentially grow to a ceiling of 250,000 visas per year, depending on demand. It is important to keep in mind that this is only an analysis of a proposed bill and that nothing referenced in this article has yet been enacted. This is merely a prospective look at what future immigration law may look like according to the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. Under the current proposal, for the first 4 fiscal years after enactment of the bill, the visa numbers allocated to the merit-based category would be used to supplement EB-3 visa numbers in order to eliminate the lengthy backlogs currently existing for third preference employment-based petitions. Starting in the fifth fiscal year after enactment of the bill the merit-based visa numbers would be open to applicants without pending or approved petitions in either employment-based or family-based categories. Visa Allocation and Availability The merit-based system would be divided into two tiers, one for high-skilled workers (Tier 1) and one for medium to low-skilled workers (Tier 2). Each year starting in the fifth fiscal year after approval of the act, 50% of the visas would be allocated to each tier. Unused visas from the previous year would be able to be utilized for the next year’s applications in proportions allocated to both tiers. Tier 1 positions are for jobs that require extensive and considerable preparation and Tier 2 positions are for jobs that require medium preparation or less to perform. These terms are borrowed from and modeled after current O*Net “Job Zones” terminology. If the national unemployment rate remained at or below 8.5% AND if available merit-based visas only accounted for less than 75% of visa demand in a fiscal year, the next year’s visa numbers would be increased by 5% over the previous year. If the unemployment rate was higher than 8.5% OR the available visa numbers met 75% or more of the merit-based demand, the visa numbers would remain the same for the next fiscal year with no increase. The proposed fee for such a merit-based immigrant visa would be $500. Points System Under the proposed merit-based visa category, an alien would accrue points based on education, work experience, family ties to the United States and other attributes. Alien applicants with the highest overall points in a year would be given green cards. Tier 1: There would be a maximum of 100 possible points in this category. Points would be allocated based on: Education – A PhD earns and applicant 15 points, a Master’s alone earns 10 points and a Bachelor’s alone earns 5 points. A PhD holder would not be able to accrue points for a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree, despite the fact that he/she may possess them in addition to a PhD. Employment – An alien may accrue 3 points per year that the alien has been lawfully employed in the United States in an O*Net Job Zone 5 occupation and 2 points per year that the alien has been lawfully employed in the United States in an O*Net Job Zone 4 occupation. A maximum of 20 points can be earned through employment. So, if an alien has worked for 10 years in a Job Zone 5 occupation he/she will only receive 20 points, the same as an alien who has worked for 10 years in a Job Zone 4 occupation. Job Zone 5 occupations are those where extensive preparation is needed. Doctorate, Master’s, Medical, or Professional degrees are commonly required for these jobs. Examples of Job Zone 5 occupations include: Surgeons, Biologists, Materials Scientists, Biochemists, Biophysicists, Dentists, Anthropologists, Neurologists, Mathematicians, Astronomers, Family and General Practitioners, Physicists, and Sociologists. Job Zone 4 occupations are those where considerable preparation is needed. A minimum of a Bachelor’s degree is usually required for these jobs. Examples of Job Zone 4 occupations include: Biochemical Engineers, Computer Programmers, Chemists, Logistics Engineers, Software Developers, Accountants, and Electrical Engineers. Employment Related to Education – If the alien is employed in the United States or has an offer of employment in the United States related to his/her education, he/she will receive 10 points if it is in a Job Zone 5 occupation and 8 points if it is in a Job Zone 4 occupation. Entrepreneurship – Alien entrepreneurs who employee at least 2 employees in either Job Zone 4 or Job Zone 5 occupations will receive 10 points. Employment in a High Demand Occupation – Aliens employed in the United States or with offer of employment in the United States in high demand jobs shall receive 10 points. This is separate from the general Employment points awarded based on years of employment. For Tier 1, “high demand occupation” means any one of the 5 most highly petitioned for occupations for H-1 visas in the previous fiscal year. For example, in fiscal year 2012 the top H-1 occupations were: Programmer Analyst, Project Manager, Computer Programmer, Systems Analyst, and Software Engineer. Under the proposed bill, these occupations would be considered “high demand” for the merit based visa during the next fiscal year. Civic Involvement – Aliens with significant amounts of community service may receive 2 points. English Language Knowledge – Aliens who have received an 80 or better of the Test of English as a Foreign Language or an equivalent score on a comparable test will receive 10 points. Siblings and Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens Over the Age of 31 – Under the proposed bill, siblings of US citizens and married sons and daughters over the age of 31 of US citizens would no longer be eligible to receive family-based immigrant visas. However, these familial relationships will earn applicants 10 points in the merit-based visa system. Age – Aliens between the ages of 18 and 24 years will receive 8 points. Aliens between the ages of 25 and 32 years will receive 6 points. Aliens between the ages of 33 and 37 will receive 4 points. No points are awarded based on age for aliens over 37 years old. While the maximum possible points in the merit-based system is 100, for practical purposes it may be unlikely that many PhD holders would receive their degree before the age of 25. So the likely maximum would be 98 points, though it is certainly possible to receive a PhD before the age of 25 years. Country of Origin – Aliens who are nationals of a country that has sent less than 50,000 lawful permanent residents to the United States during the past 5 years shall receive 5 points. Under the proposed bill the Diversity Visa category would be eliminated. However, aliens from countries meeting the criteria of what are now known as Diversity Visa countries would receive points based on being a national of those countries under the proposed bill. Tier 2: There would be a maximum of 100 possible points in this category. Points would be allocated based on: Employment – An alien may accrue 2 points per year that the alien has been lawfully employed in the United States with a maximum of 20 points may be gained based on years of employment. Aliens who have more than 10 years of employment in the United States will not continue to accrue points for that employment. Special Employment – Aliens employed full-time or with offers of full-time employment in the United States will receive 10 points if the employment is in a high demand tier 2 occupation or in a zone 1, zone 2, or zone 3 occupation. A High Demand Tier 2 occupation would be, after the proposed W visa program was created, the top 5 most petitioned for “registered positions” under the W visa program. High demand tier 2 occupations will change based on the most sought after W visas positions from the previous year. Job Zone 3 occupations are those where medium preparation is needed. Vocational school, related experience, or an associate’s degree is usually required for these occupations. Zone 3 occupations include: Dental Hygienists, Chemical Technicians, File Clerks, Radiologic Technologists, Acute Care Nurses, Computer Operators. Job Zone 2 occupations are those where some preparation is needed. A high school diploma is usually required for these occupations. Examples of Zone 2 occupations include: Butchers, Roofers, Sheet Metal Workers, Telemarketers, Insurance Claims Clerks, Locksmiths, Restaurant Cooks, and Data Entry Keyers. Job Zone 1 occupations are those where little or no preparation is needed. A high school diploma or a GED is sometimes required for these occupations. Examples of Zone 1 occupations include: Fast Food Cooks, Farmworkers, Dishwashers, Janitors, Meat Packers, Waitresses, and Cashiers. Caregiver Employment – Aliens who are or have been primary caregivers may receive 10 points. Exceptional Employment Record – Aliens who have received promotions, have long-term employment with an employer, have risen from a lower job zone to a higher job zone, have participated in safety training, have received increases and pay, and other criteria may receive 10 points for their employment record. Civic Involvement – Aliens with significant amounts of community service may receive 2 points. English Language Skills – Aliens determined to have a “proficiency” in the English language by a standardized test designated by the Secretary of Education will receive 10 points. Aliens determined to have a “knowledge” of the English language will receive 5 points. Siblings and Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens Over the Age of 31 – Under the proposed bill, siblings of US citizens and married sons and daughters over the age of 31 of US citizens would no longer be eligible to receive family-based immigrant visas. However, these familial relationships will earn applicants 10 points in the merit-based visa system. Age – Aliens between the ages of 18 and 24 years will receive 8 points. Aliens between the ages of 25 and 32 years will receive 6 points. Aliens between the ages of 33 and 37 will receive 4 points. No points are awarded based on age for aliens over 37 years old. Country of Origin – Aliens who are nationals of a country that has sent less than 50,000 lawful permanent residents to the United States during the past 5 years shall receive 5 points. Under the proposed bill the Diversity Visa category would be eliminated. However, aliens from countries meeting the criteria of what are now known as Diversity Visa countries would receive points based on being a national of those countries under the proposed bill. Conclusion If this bill passes, the merit-based visa will be a major change to the immigration system utilized in the United States. In conjunction with other changes to visa allocation, the addition of a minimum of 120,000 visas per year to qualifying immigrants, both high and low skilled, will help to ensure that lengthy backlogs are not formed. Additionally, aliens who are highly qualified but not meeting the criteria of other employment-based immigrant visa categories would be able to immigrate to the United States thanks to the points earned based on their attributes. It is hard to tell if this bill will pass, or if it is will pass without major revisions to what the Gang of Eight has proposed. But, it is beneficial to look into the details of the bill to see the kinds of reforms that are emerging as politically desirable and feasible. Moreover, as this particular reform proposal shows, even if all reform measure were to be passed in the Congress tomorrow, there would still potentially be many years before newly created programs would become available for utilization. The merit-based system would not start accepting applications for visa until the 5th fiscal year after enactment of the bill. Any potential immigrants who are considering a life in the United States may not want to wait for the uncertain future. If you qualify for a visa now, based on the current immigration laws, it may be better to go forward with an application than delaying to wait for other proposed avenues of immigration. If you are interested in pursuing employment through an immigrant visa in the United States, please contact our experienced attorney staff at info@hooyou.com for details on a free evaluation. We will ensure that the best option pertaining to your credentials will be identified. For more information on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, please click on one of the following topics below: Overview of Gang of Eight’s “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013” AILA South Chapter Conference Comprehensive Immigration Reform Discussion CBP Begins Automation of I-94 Process W Visa for lesser-skilled workers not working in agriculture Details of the Proposed Merit-based Visa System under the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act Increased Scrutiny and Concern as the EB-5 Program Becomes More Popular Details of White House Reform Proposals Emerge The Basic Layout of Comprehensive Immigration Reform The Potential for Advanced STEM Degree Visas Comprehensive Immigration Reform: What the Election May Mean for Employment-based Immigration Upcoming House Vote on the STEM Act 01485Baidu0 - See more at: http://www.hooyou.com/reform/merit-base-visa.html#sthash.YqgxxPfY.dpuf
Again, you have your views on what is more important, I have mine. If you understood the world of finance, you might recognize the danger the current financial system is to the country.
Bernie Bombs in NYDN Editorial Meeting, Reveals Just How Substance-Free His Campaign Is by Alex Griswold | 12:28 pm, April 5th, 2016 For all the attention that Donald Trump has gotten for his policy-free trainwreck of an editorial meeting with The Washington Post and later The New York Times, not much attention has been given to the fact that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders gave an equally disastrous interview to the editorial board of the New York Daily News. NYDN released its transcript of the editorial meeting late last night, and boy is it a doozy. The worst parts are below, but those with the time to spare should really read the whole thing. Suffice it say, it was more or less an hour-long exercise in the editors asking serious and well thought-out questions about policy, and Sanders revealing that he was in way, way over his head. Right off the bat, when it came to the central message of Sanders’ campaign– that Wall Street should be prosecuted for their role in the 2008 financial collapse– he couldn’t even say what laws they were supposed to have broken, saying he only “suspected” and “believed” they broke the law. Daily News: …Do you have a sense that there is a particular statute or statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments? Sanders: I suspect that there are. Yes. Daily News: You believe that? But do you know? Sanders: I believe that that is the case. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don’t. But if I would…yeah, that’s what I believe, yes. When pressed further on the topic, Sanders sounded downright Trumpian, repeating the word “fraudulent” ad nauseum but giving little insight into the actual law. Daily News: What kind of fraudulent activity are you referring to when you say that? Sanders: What kind of fraudulent activity? Fraudulent activity that brought this country into the worst economic decline in its history by selling packages of fraudulent, fraudulent, worthless subprime mortgages. How’s that for a start? Subprime mortgages were (and still are) legal. It’s possible industry practices towards subprime mortgages in the lead-up to the financial crisis were illegal, but if so Sanders clearly can’t articulate why. When it comes to his campaign promise to break up the large financial institutions, Sanders clearly has given little thought to how he would actually carry it out. In the span of a few questions, Sanders told the Daily News he will pass a law to do it, then claimed the administration already has the power to do so under Dodd-Frank, and then claimed the Federal Reserve has the power to do so by fiat. Likewise, Sanders has evidently given little thought to what impact his policy would actually have on the large institutions he wants to break up: Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have…JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of… Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States. Daily News: I get that point. I’m just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don’t understand. So, what I’m asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go? Sanders: I’m not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank. Daily News: No. But you’d be breaking it up. Sanders: That’s right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That’s not my decision. Now I suspect that some Bernie fans would appreciate his somewhat dismissive attitude towards what will happen to giant financial institutions once he intervenes and breaks them down. But if the financial crisis proved one thing it’s that the health of the world economy is often tied to the health of these institutions. If Sanders can’t even predict what’s going to happen toJPMorgan after you break up JPMogran, how can he predict its effect on the global economy and everyday Americans? NYDN then brought up a recent court case in which a federal judge rebuked the federal government’s ability to designate MetLife a “systematically important” company in need of greater oversight, asking what the implications for Sanders’ policies were. “It’s something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that,” Sanders responded. That’s not some minor and obscure issue, by the way. Just last week, The New York Timeseditorial board declared the ruling a threat to Dodd-Frank itself. It bears repeating that these aren’t questions about foreign policy or social justice issues, generally considered Sanders’ weaknesses. This is just on financial policy, the entire underpinning of Sanders campaign. And on question after question, Sanders whiffed. On foreign policy, we again see the pattern of Sanders speaking broadly about the issues that need to be fixed, but offering zero concrete answers on how to do so. On Israel, for example, Sanders condemned the building of settlements but couldn’t say how far or how much Israel should pull back. “You’re asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer,” he said frankly. Even while continuing to condemn the settlements, Sanders basically telegraphed that he would do nothing as president to end them. “Israel will make their own decisions. They are a government, an independent nation,” he said. When pressed about his belief that Israel shouldn’t face charges of war crimes, Sanders couldn’t even explain his own stance. Daily News: Do you support the Palestinian leadership’s attempt to use the International Criminal Court to litigate some of these issues to establish that, in their view, Israel had committed essentially war crimes? Sanders: No. Daily News: Why not? Sanders: Why not? Daily News: Why not, why it… Sanders: Look, why don’t I support a million things in the world? I’m just telling you that I happen to believe…anybody help me out here, because I don’t remember the figures, but my recollection is over 10,000 innocent people were killed in Gaza. Does that sound right? Whether you agree with Sanders position here or elsewhere it besides the point. I would expect a presidential candidate to be able to explain pretty clearly why he doesn’t support a U.S. ally being brought before an international court to answer charges they committed war crimes,especially if that candidate was a former resident. (And that last part of Sanders’ response makes no sense. Who defends Israel by listing off the number of people they killed?) To say nothing of all the times Sanders simply dodged a question. For example, he gave a lengthy three-hundred word response to a question about the Obama administration’s drone policy that didn’t even mention drones. He did however bring up the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War while he didn’t. The editorial board tried again: “President Obama has taken the authority for drone attacks away from the CIA and given it to the U.S. military. Some say that that has caused difficulties in zeroing in on terrorists, their ISIS leaders. Do you believe that he’s got the right policy there?” Sanders’ response: “I don’t know the answer to that.” On social policy, Sanders did somewhat better. He did hit a snag when asked about his promise following the Oregon shooting to release a comprehensive gun control agenda, an agenda he’s yet to release. “What the agenda is is very similar to where to where President Obama is…” Sanders said. “So I support pretty much the President’s agenda.” But Sanders got called out when he listed four principles of his new gun control agenda. “Just to be clear, the press release your campaign put out the day of that announcement of the forthcoming comprehensive plan, you made that announcement, those were the four points you made then,” an editor pointed out. “Have you moved any further beyond that?” “Well, I don’t know that anyone has moved…I think that’s the President’s vision, that’s my position,” Sanders replied. All in all, a simply pitiful performance from Sanders. It’s hard to read the entire thing and not agree with former Obama advisor Dan Pfeiffer‘s take: “The transcript of Sanders’ meeting with the Daily News Ed Board is almost as damning as Trump’s with the WaPo.” But at least Trump was in hostile territory; Sanders was talking to a liberal tabloid. It’s possible Bernie just had an off-day, that he actually knows all the answers to those very basic questions he was asked. But it seems much more likely that the reason he couldn’t answer those questions were because he lacks the seriousness and savvy one expects from a presidential candidate. I’m sure if you asked Sanders himself what went wrong, he’d give the same answer he gave for an hour straight: I don’t know. [Image via screengrab] —— >>Follow Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) on Twitter http://www.mediaite.com/online/bern...eals-just-how-substance-free-his-campaign-is/