Whats with the Homeless Holocaust Survivors, and their 'modest financial compensation', Every single Jewish Holocaust Survivor should be multi killzionairs by now! Just saying~

What makes just the Jewish so special and Why is so much money given to Just the JEWISH? Are any of the other survivor groups showered with money this way?  Why does it cost so much more money for the care of an elderly Jewish Holocaust Survivor, then anyone elses Non-Jewish Grandma or Grandpa?

Legit question is all I'm saying.  You do the math, and I'm only listing a little please forgive the mess!  I'm going to start this post with the latest headlines from Germany.  ~

Germany to Pay 772 Million Euros in Reparations to Holocaust Survivors 

German government has committed to pay nearly 800 million euros for the care of elderly Holocaust survivors as a result of negotiations in Israel between Berlin and a fund for Jewish victims of Nazi aggression. Nearly 60,000 people will benefit from the aid money.

'Open' Ghetto Survivors Now EligibleThe agreement also includes a notable shift regarding compensation for survivors of Nazi ghettos. Until now, regulations governing Claims Conference pension programs for ghetto survivors stipulated that only those who were in "closed" ghettos -- in other words, those surrounded by a wall -- were eligible for funds. Yet many ghettos, such as those in Czernowitz, Romania, and many throughout Bulgaria, were not walled in even though they were in many ways similar to closed ghettos. Jews lived under curfew, were deprived of jobs, were subject to persecution, were forced to wear yellow stars and lived in constant fear of deportation.  'Is this what Western Nations have to look forward to with all the Migrant, Illegal Border Jumpers, if and when they are deported?'

At the negotiations between German Finance Ministry and Claims Conference representatives, it was decided that two pension programs should be expanded to include Jews who lived in open ghettos under such conditions. The decision, which required the German government to commit an extra €7 million to €11 million, should bring compensation to an additional 2,000 to 3,000 survivors.

A Guide to Claims Conference Programs Worldwide

Holocaust Reparations: The Back Story

By Michael Pinto-Duschinsky • Monday, August 13, 2012

On July 10th, dignitaries from the U.S., German, and Israeli governments attended a curious ceremony at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.  The gathering marked the 60th anniversary of the first agreement by the West German government with the Israeli government and the Jewish "Claims Conference" 

to grant modest financial compensation for the 

Holocaust.

Some of the Jews in the room had spent the years since the agreement in seemingly interminable haggling. 
The event had the character of a celebration and an exercise in self-congratulation.  Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, a prominent Jewish corporate lawyer who currently holds the offices of Special Advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Holocaust Issues and Special Negotiator for the Jewish Claims Conference, was in top form.  In the 1990s, as a sub-cabinet official in Bill Clinton's administration, Eizenstat headed the talks between class action lawyers for Holocaust survivors and German corporations that were accused of using slave labor during the Second World War.  Bodies such as the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, the "Claims Conference," and the German government also participated.  Eizenstat subsequently wrote a self-praising volume about his role and went on to receive the "Great Negotiator" award from his alma mater, Harvard Law School.

Haifa's Helping Hand: Retirement Home Supports Impoverished Holocaust Survivors

By Jessica Donath in Haifa, Israel
Many Holocaust survivors living in Israel spend what should be their golden years in a state of poverty. A retirement home in Haifa that opened in 2010 is lending a helping hand to one of the country's neediest groups. The project is being largely funded by Christians, with the assistance of volunteers from Germany.

Reparations: the price of genocide

By Nerina Čevra on 25 Jun 2013

If you were to ask international law that question you will find the law is largely on the side of the victims.  International law establishes the legal basis of a right to reparation: one rooted in the rights of the victim.
In the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (2005), the law states that remedies to human rights violations include equal and effective access to justice; adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered; and access to relevant information concerning violations and reparations mechanisms.

Hungary Releases Promised $5.6 Million to Claims Conference for Holocaust Survivor Aid Worldwide

The Claims Conference is pleased to announce that the government of Hungary, after protracted and difficult talks over the course of several years, has agreed to release $5.6 million in previously committed funds for social welfare services for needy Holocaust survivors of Hungarian origin living outside of Hungary.

$40M in Holocaust Reparations Stolen in Massive Scam

By Jonathan Dienst

Tuesday, Nov 9, 2010 • Updated at 1:59 PM EDT

Millions of dollars meant to help survivors of the Jewish Holocaust instead were stolen and fraudulently given to thousands of people who were not eligible for the funds, Justice Department officials said.

The FBI said insiders who were responsible for verifying requests to the Conference On Jewish Material Claims instead helped commit a massive fraud.  Investigators said in exchange for kickbacks, the employees signed off on bogus applications submitted in part by Russian immigrants who falsely claimed they had lost their homes and belongings during the Nazi era.  Seventeen people have been charged in the outrageous swindle.

West Germany's Holocaust Payoffto Israel and World Jewry

By Mark Weber

The passions and propaganda of wartime normally diminish with the passage of time. A striking exception is the Holocaust campaign, which seems to grow more pervasive and intense as the years go by. Certainly the most lucrative expression of this seemingly endless campaign has been West Germany's massive and historically unparalleled reparations payoff to Israel and world Jewry for the alleged collective sins of the German people during the Hitler era. Between 1953 and 1992, the Federal Republic of (West) Germany paid out more than $35 billion in reparations to the Zionist state and to millions of individual "victims of National Socialism."

How did this remarkable program get started? How lucrative has it been? What does it suggest about the "six million" figure? And what are its social and political implications?

Bowing to pressure

In September 1945, shortly after the end of the Second World War, Jewish leader Chaim Weizmann submitted a memorandum on behalf of the Zionist Jewish Agency to the governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France "demanding" (in the words of the Encydopaedia Judaica) "reparations, restitution and indemnification due to the Jewish people from Germany" The western Allies lost no time in responding favorably to Weizmann's demands. /1 The American government was particularly eager to have the Germans pay up. /2 As a result, the German government set up by the western Allies at Bonn in 1949 never had any real choice but to acknowledge the alleged collective guilt of the German people during the Hitler era and pay what was demanded.

Swindler’s List: A Brief Look at the Holocaust Reparations Racket

by Richard Edmondson on September 1, 2012 inHolocaust, Jewish Matters

After the conclusion of World War II did the Germans pay reparations of some sort to the Jews?

A lot of people would probably assume that, yes, some sort of redress did occur, but that whatever it was, most likely was paid out in one, two, three, or perhaps four lump sum payments, and that the matter was over, settled, and done with, oh, say maybe five years after the war, or ten at most. Few people—or at any rate few who aren’t Jewish, or who don’t make a regular habit of reading the Jewish press—would guess that today, fully 67 years after the war, Germany continues to pay reparations to Jews, or that the benefits doled out keep going up every year, rather than down. But this is indeed the case.

In July of 2012 observances were held marking the 60thanniversary of the Luxembourg Agreement. The event took place in Washington D.C., with ceremonies held at the Israeli Embassy, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and the Hart Senate Office Building. So what, you may ask, is the Luxembourg Agreement?

Congress has formally declared war only 11 times in U.S. history, and authorized the use of military force 11 times.

All the Previous Declarations of War

As we head into a period of vigorous congressional debate over whether to authorize the use of force against Syria, it's instructive to look back at America's history of congressional war declarations.  The Congressional Research Service put together a great mini-history in 2011, "Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications," by Jennifer Elsea and Richard Grimmett, which is worth a read at this juncture.

The obvious take-home is that America has done a better job of winning its declared wars in the last century than achieving clear-cut victories in ventures authorized under legislative measures that fell short of a formal declaration of war.

Here are the 11 formal declarations of war:

And here are the 11 conflicts governed by congressional legislation authorizing force but not declaring war, per the CRS report.

• May 28, 1798 and July 9, 1798. FRANCE. Legislation  authorizing the president to instruct commanders of U.S. Navy warships to “subdue, seize and take any armed French vessel which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere, on the high seas...”
• February 6, 1802. TRIPOLI. Legislation authorizing the president to “equip, officer, man, and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite...for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas" in response to threats from Tripoli.
• March 3, 1815. ALGERIA. Legislation authorizing the president to use the U.S. Navy, “as judged requisite by the President” to protect the “commerce and seamen” of the United States on the “Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas” in response to conflict with the Dey and Regency of Algiers.
• March 3, 1819. PIRATES. Legislation enacted “to protect the commerce of the United States, and punish the crime of piracy.”
• January 29, 1955. FORMOSA. Legislation authorizing the president to “employ the Armed Forces of the United States as he deems necessary for the specific purpose of securing and protecting Formosa, and the Pescadores against armed attack....”
• March 9, 1957. THE MIDDLE EAST. “To undertake, in the general area of the Middle East, military assistance programs with any nation or group of nations of that area desiring such assistance.”
• August 10, 1964. SOUTHEAST ASIA. Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
• October 12, 1983. LEBANON. "The Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution."
• January 12, 1991. IRAQ. Congress passed the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution.”
• September 18, 2001. TERRORISTS. A joint resolution to authorize "the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
• October 16, 2002. IRAQ. "Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution."

Assad: "The Middle East is a powder keg, there is risk of a regional war"

Syrian President again threatened with the expansion of the conflict if the West launches military action against him."The chaos and extremism will spread,"    i'm going to break the page, because this article is translated from Spanish to English, or you can just do it yourself?  

Hunger Games, U.S.A. By PAUL KRUGMAN

Major Crops Grown in the United States

In round numbers, U.S. farmers produce about $ 143 billion worth of crops and about $153 billion worth of livestock each year. Production data from the year 2011 for major agricultural crops grown in this country are highlighted in the following table:

The aging American farmer: Who will work the land next?

Something terrible has happened to the soul of the Republican Party. We’ve gone beyond bad economic doctrine. We’ve even gone beyond selfishness and special interests. At this point we’re talking about a state of mind that takes positive glee in inflicting further suffering on the already miserable.

The occasion for these observations is, as you may have guessed, the monstrous farm bill the House passed last week.

Why the Government Should Pay Farmers to Plant Cover Crops

Globally, 2012 will likely rank as one of the ten hottest in recorded history, The New York Times reports. If it does, “it will mean that the 10 warmest years on record all fell within the past 15 years, a measure of how much the planet has warmed.” Here in the US, last year was far and away the hottest ever on record. In other words, climate change is no longer a theory or a model or an abstract worry involving future generations. It’s happening, now—and if you want to see its likely effect on farming, look at the breadbasket state of Kansas, where the same prolonged drought that reduced corn and soy yields is now pinching the winter wheat crop, as I wrote a few days ago. On Wednesday, the UDSA declared much of the wheat belt a disaster area because of the drought’s effect on the crop.

For decades, farm bills have had two major pieces. One piece offers subsidies to farmers; the other offers nutritional aid to Americans in distress, mainly in the form of food stamps (these days officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP).

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don’t Farm

EL CAMPO, Tex. — Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.

Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual “direct payments,” because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post.

Some of them collect hundreds of thousands of dollars without planting a seed. Mary Anna Hudson, 87, from the River Oaks neighborhood in Houston, has received $191,000 over the past decade. For Houston surgeon Jimmy Frank Howell, the total was $490,709.

Long ago, when subsidies helped many poor farmers, you could defend the whole package as a form of support for those in need. Over the years, however, the two pieces diverged. Farm subsidies became a fraud-ridden program that mainly benefits corporations and wealthy individuals. Meanwhile food stamps became a crucial part of the social safety net.

So House Republicans voted to maintain farm subsidies — at a higher level than either the Senate or the White House proposed — while completely eliminating food stamps from the bill.

To fully appreciate what just went down, listen to the rhetoric conservatives often use to justify eliminating safety-net programs. It goes something like this: “You’re personally free to help the poor. But the government has no right to take people’s money” — frequently, at this point, they add the words “at the point of a gun” — “and force them to give it to the poor.”

It is, however, apparently perfectly O.K. to take people’s money at the point of a gun and force them to give it to agribusinesses and the wealthy.

Now, some enemies of food stamps don’t quote libertarian philosophy; they quote the Bible instead. Representative Stephen Fincher of Tennessee, for example, cited the New Testament: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” Sure enough, it turns out that Mr. Fincher has personally received millions in farm subsidies.

Given this awesome double standard — I don’t think the word “hypocrisy” does it justice — it seems almost anti-climactic to talk about facts and figures. But I guess we must.  >>more<<

I have an even better idea they should really take a look at and make cuts too:

STOP GIVING MILLIONS IF NOT BILLIONS TO FARMERS NOT TO GROW CROPS AND STARVING NATIONS WHO THE MONEY ISN”T GOING TO THE STARVING.  U.S. START TAKING CARE OF YOUR OWN!

Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011

Introduction

This Executive Summary focuses on the 2011 biotech crop highlights, which are presented and discussed in detail in ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011.

Biotech crops reached 160 million hectares, up 12 million hectares on 8% growth, from 2010, as the global population reached a historical milestone of 7 billion on 31 October 2011

2011 was the 16th year of commercialization of biotech crops, 1996-2011, when growth continued after a remarkable 15 consecutive years of increases; a double-digit increase of 12 million hectares, at a growth rate of 8%, reaching a record 160 million hectares.

Biotech crops, fastest adopted crop technology

A 94-fold increase in hectarage from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 160 million hectares in 2011 makes biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture.

Millions of farmers globally elect to adopt biotech crops due to the benefits they offer

The most compelling and credible testimony to biotech crops is that during the 16 year period 1996 to 2011, millions of farmers in 29 countries worldwide, elected to make more than 100 million independent decisions to plant and replant an accumulated hectarage of more than 1.25 billion hectares – an area 25% larger than the total land mass of the US or China – there is one principal and overwhelming reason that underpins the trust and confidence of risk-averse farmers in biotechnology – biotech crops deliver substantial, and sustainable, socio-economic and environmental benefits. The 2011 study conducted in Europe confirmed that biotech crops are safe as animal feed.

Over 400 Companies that Aren’t Using GMOs in their Products

GMOs info from Richard Gee

As can be seen in our map, GM technology has been enthusiastically embraced in the Americas and in many Asian countries. By contrast, many European countries are subject to severe restrictions on growing GM crops. Developing countries are planting GM crops at a more rapid rate than rich countries.

Short URL: http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=126460

Peter Singer: women’s right to have children might have to be sacrificed for the environment

Singer said that since the world’s affluent are not likely to restrain their high rate of consumption compared to the world’s poor any time soon, and since it’s possible that family planning efforts may “turn out to be not enough…we ought to consider what other things there are that we can do …in order to try stave off some of the worst consequences of the environmental catastrophes…”

“It’s possible of course, that we give women reproductive choices, that we meet the unmet need for contraception but that we find that the number of children that women choose to have is still such that population continues to rise in a way that causes environmental problems,” he said. Women have more children because of their “ideological or religious views.”

Singer added that “greenhouse gases… are getting very close to a tipping point,” and climate change could become a “catastrophe and cause hundreds of millions or billions of people to become climate refugees.”

In that case, he said, “we need to consider whether we can talk about trying to reduce population growth and whether that’s compatible with the very reasonable concerns people have about women’s right to control their life decisions and their reproduction.”

Singer, who has also argued the case for bestowing international human rights on primates, said it is “appropriate to consider whether women’s reproductive rights are ‘fundamental’ and unalterable or whether, in bioethicist speak, they are ‘prima facie’ – good and important to respect but there can be imaginable circumstances in which you may be justified in overriding them.”

Then Singer compared women’s right to bear children to the traditional villager’s right to graze their cows on “common” grounds. As the villagers get more affluent and their cows die less from disease, he said, until the commons are overgrazed, “yields are falling… and that’s a road to disaster.”

“Turns out that the right to graze as many cows as you like on the common was not an absolute right,” said Singer. “Obviously this is what I think we ought to be saying even about how many children we have… I hope we don’t get to a point where we do have to override it… but I don’t think we ought to shrink away from considering that as a possibility.”

His views were not entirely well received. Babtunde Osotimehin, executive director of the UNFPA objected, “There is no way we will come to a point where we are limiting the rights of people in this way.”

Osotimehin was one of a number of speakers at the conference to highlight what pro-lifers have been saying for decades: that “global population growth is actually coming down” and that predictions of worldwide famine and overpopulation disaster were way off the mark.

“India not only feeds itself, it exports food,” said Osotimehin. He added that while some regions of the world continue to grow, others have “more 65-year-olds than 5-year-olds and those countries have issues with how they are going to remain competitive.”

Earlier at the conference, Karolinska Institute Professor of International Health, Hans Rosling, clearly demonstrated (as opponents of population control have also contended for decades) that falling fertility is related to declines in infant mortality and to rising affluence. He also conceded that fears of a population “explosion” are grossly exaggerated and the world’s population will likely peak at about 9 billion, and then start to fall.

Harvard School of Public Health’s Alicia Yamin also said that the original population explosion proponent, Thomas Malthus, was wrong. “Human beings are more than just consumers” she said. They have “capacity for reason,” and are “active agents” able to solve problems.

The problem, a number of speakers identified, is overconsumption by the world’s wealthiest. “One third of the food that is produced in the world today is wasted, “ said Osotimehin. “So sometimes it is not about what is available, it is about the politics distribution and it is about the politics of access.”

“A homeless person in Denmark actually consumes more than a family of six in Tanzania,” he added.

And wealthy people in developed nations aim to consume as much as wealthy Americans. The “new population problem,” said Osotimehin, “is that every young person who grows up in Tanzania wants to drive an SUV.”

Kavita Ramdas, an Indian representative of the Ford Foundation in New Delhi pointed out that the “ecological footprint” of the average American’s consumption is 9.7 hectares, compared to the average for a person from Mozambique: 4.7 hectares. An American SUV requires 44,000 gallons of water to produce it. And American houses grew 38% in size between 1975 and 2002, even though the number of people per household fell.

It is difficult to say how receptive the conference attendees were to this attack on American consumerism (Melinda Gates’ house is 66,000 square feet and features an indoor swimming pool that is piped with an underwater sound system.) But Ramdas was just warming up.

“I don’t think all rights should be put in stone,” she said. “Why can there not be a prima facie right imposed on the countries that are truly putting an unsustainable load on the planet for all of us?” She continued saying that the United States and Europe are not always going to have this “post-colonial glow in which they assume they are always going to have control.”

“If Americans consume more than Africans, they should be forced into a one child policy,” she said at one point. >>MORE from Ye Olde Journalist<<

Short URL: http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=125503                            

ZOA Regains Tax-Exempt Status After Yearlong Hiatus

ABOUT THE ZOA

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is the oldest and perhaps the largest solidly pro-Israel organization in the United States and is a charter member of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

The ZOA was founded in 1897 with the primary goal of supporting the re-establishment of the Jewish State in the land which has been the continuous homeland of Jews over millennia. The ZOA’s support was crucial in mobilizing the backing of the U.S. Government and the American People fro the recognition of Israel in 1948 and continues in its unwavering support of the Jewish State of Israel.

ZOA National President Morton Klein, Glen Beck, Michelle Bachman

The Zionist Organization of America has regained its tax exemption more than a year after its failure to file financial disclosures led the Internal Revenue Service to revoke its nonprofit status.

The 116-year-old Jewish group’s tax exemption was reinstated on May 15, according to a statement from the ZOA.

“We’re delighted and gratified,” said ZOA National President Morton Klein in an interview with the Forward. “Now we can be raising money directly for ZOA.”

Donations intended for the ZOA given between February 2012 and May 2013 went to a donor advised fund maintained by an outside organization.

The ZOA, which occupies a decidedly hawkish slot on the pro-Israel Jewish spectrum, faced deep internal strife following the loss of its tax exemption in February 2012. ZOA National Vice Chairman Steven Goldberg emerged as a strident critic of the organization’s professional leadership, criticizing Klein for what Goldberg alleged was an effort to keep the loss of the tax exemption from the public. >>>more<<<

The Government OWNS and RUNS your

Church

and its Doctrines!

501c3 Tax-Exempt Organizations

 Lorraine Day, M.D.

“Most churches in America have organized as ‘501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations.’  This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years.  Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954.  We can thank Senator Lyndon B. Johnson for that.  Johnson was no ally of the church.  As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping ‘public policy.’

“Although Johnson proffered this as a ‘favor’ to churches, the favor also came with strings attached (more like shackles).  One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501c3 acceptance has had to the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501c3 church.  501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues of the day.

Short URL: http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=124690

ICE union chief Chris Crane: Agency pushed pro-amnesty policies during the 2012 election [VIDEO]

National ICE Council president Chris Crane

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, the head of the immigration enforcement officers union harshly criticized both Congress and the Obama administration over the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill.

National ICE Council president Chris Crane said the massive bill places little value on the opinions of experienced immigration law enforcement professionals.

In a six-part interview with TheDC, Crane explains how Congress, the Obama administration and the bipartisan group of eight senators who crafted the 867-page bill have shown no willingness to enforce immigration laws and have left ICE unable to do its job. more

What I want to know is if  Immigration Judges are Elected or Appointed?  I found this link earlier:  ‘Judge-by-Judge Asylum Decisions in Immigration CourtsFY 2007-2012′  in my normal surfing the web kind of way and ran across this list on Immigration and Judges who have the power to grant Amnesty.   Here is another link from TRACIMMIGRATION that seems worth knowing.  After much reading on this topic I  think that the Immigration Judges need to be elected not appointed.   ~shera~

 

Asylum Denial Rates by Nationality FY 2000 – FY 2005

The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge has established a procedure that allows any person to file a complaint about the conduct of an Immigration Judge. Below are links to documents which describe how to file a complaint, the procedures used to process complaints, and statistics concerning the disposition of complaints. There is also a link to the Ethics and Professionalism Guide for Immigration Judges. source

Nationality	Number Decided	Percent Denied	Ranking
Jamaica	138	92.0	1
Nicaragua	320	90.6	2
El Salvador	2,813	87.8	3
Dominican Republic	100	87.0	4
Mexico	1,829	85.8	5
Vietnam	342	85.4	6
Guyana	408	85.3	7
Ecuador	175	83.4	8
Haiti	12,675	83.2	9
Argentina	339	82.6	10
Cambodia	113	82.3	11
Honduras	780	82.2	12
Guatemala	4,118	81.5	13
Laos	200	80.5	14
Poland	155	80.0	15
Ghana	282	78.0	16
Philippines	631	75.8	17
Macedonia	309	75.1	18
Israel	156	74.4	19
Venezuela	561	74.0	20
Yemen	284	72.2	21
South Africa	110	71.8	22
Jordan	368	71.5	23
Brazil	325	71.4	24
Nigeria	997	71.1	25
Senegal	193	68.4	26
Angola	110	67.3	27
Indonesia	4,283	66.7	28
Syria	227	65.2	29
Colombia	13,524	64.2	30
Cuba	524	62.0	31
Turkey	305	61.3	32
Democratic Republic of Congo	157	61.1	33
Mauritania	1,919	60.7	34
Peru	1,747	60.6	35
Algeria	254	59.1	36
Lebanon	583	59.0	38
Pakistan	2,236	59.0	38
Latvia	113	58.4	39
Gambia	248	58.1	40
Armenia	3,005	57.3	41
Bangladesh	1,577	56.9	42
India	5,896	55.6	44
Sierra Leone	1,141	55.6	44
Ivory Coast (Cote D’Ivoire)	399	55.1	45
Kampuchea	236	54.2	46
Yugoslavia	2,080	53.5	47
China	34,093	53.3	48
Guinea	1,394	52.7	49
Togo	500	52.4	50
Kenya	470	52.1	51
Cameroon	1,740	52.0	52
Bulgaria	526	51.7	53
Burundi	125	51.2	54
Ukraine	999	51.1	55
Albania	6,154	50.9	57
Romania	576	50.9	57
Eritrea	545	50.8	58
Georgia	602	49.5	59
Ethiopia	2,420	49.3	60
United Kingdom	109	48.6	61
Uganda	451	48.1	62
Zimbabwe	290	47.9	63
Fiji	896	47.7	64
Sudan	745	46.6	65
Congo	1,139	46.5	67
Somalia	2,248	46.5	67
Serbia Montenegro	227	44.9	68
Iran	1,828	44.2	69
Sri Lanka	1,137	42.9	71
Stateless	266	42.9	71
Iraq	1,526	42.0	72
Liberia	1,000	39.9	74
Zaire	168	39.9	74
Azerbaijan	304	39.8	75
Nepal	451	38.8	76
Soviet Union	227	37.9	77
Rwanda	175	37.7	78
Kazakhstan	253	37.2	79
Russia	2,803	36.1	80
Byelorussia (Belarus)	218	34.4	81
Egypt	1,821	32.8	82
Uzebekistan	438	29.9	83
Afghanistan	682	29.0	84
Burma (Myanmar)	840	24.9	85

Note: Only nationalities with at least 100 decisions during this period listed.

Immigration Inspections When Arriving in the U.S.

Each day, over a million people from around the globe seek to enter the U.S. through one of about 317 designated “ports-of-entry”. Many enter by land, such as at entry stations near San Diego or Detroit. Others enter at international airports, such as JFK in New York or O’Hare in Chicago, or through seaports in Miami or elsewhere. What Do Terms Mean? Statistics presented here relate to events, not people. It is not unusual for business people, tourists, and others to leave and return to the U.S. several times in a single year. Such people will be counted multiple times in the government numbers that year — once each time they enter. This is because these statistics reflect counts of the number of entries or entry attempts at official land, air, and sea ports of entry. “Let In” versus “Kept Out.” This report focuses on the critical decisions of immigration inspectors. Do they let you enter the county — that is walk or drive across the land border, or walk out the airport door into the U.S. upon arrival in this country? See more… TRAC has obtained government data that allows for a closer inspection of what happens to people when they appear at ports for entry into the country. This short summary report focuses on the process of gaining entry into the country at these official points of entry. It does not look at aliens without proper papers trying to slip across our border with Mexico and Canada in between these official entry stations. Reports on several aspects of controlling such cross-border entries into the US can be viewed at Immigration Reports. The general process of entry into the U.S.

Immigration Judges Often Picked Based On GOP Ties

The Bush administration increasingly emphasized partisan political ties over expertise in recent years in selecting the judges who decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, despite laws that preclude such considerations, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law, Justice Department, immigration court and other records show.

Two newly appointed immigration judges were failed candidates for the U.S. Tax Court nominated by President Bush; one fudged his taxes and the other was deemed unqualified to be a tax judge by the nation’s largest association of lawyers. Both were Republican loyalists.

Short URL: http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=123963