Thursday, 10 May 2012
Why
would the White House consider
Susan Sarandon a security risk?
By
Hollie
McKay
Published
April 24, 2012
FoxNews.com
“We
know we’re under surveillance, I’ve had my phone tapped,”
Sarandon told the audience during a question and answer session at
New York’s Tribeca Film Festival. She also said she had twice seen
a file the government holds on her by filing Freedom of Information
requests.
A
rep for Sarandon did not respond to FoxNews.com's request for further
comment, and government officials are staying mum on the matter, too.
So why, as Sarandon claims, would the feds would want to keep the
Oscar-winner on close watch, and out of the White House all together?
"We
know we’re under surveillance, I’ve had my phone tapped"
-
Susan Sarandon
“Based
on her history of activism and outspoken nature in pursuing her
agenda, it makes sense that the White House would be leery about her
motives for a White House visit,” Michael Wildes, an immigration
lawyer at New York-based Wildes & Weinberg, told FOX411’s Pop
Tarts. “Her motivation to bring this out is more than likely about
her political agenda more so than it is her looking for attention.
But, wire taps do not necessarily have to be indicative of someone
that is a serious security threat, especially in the Patriot Act
era.”
Sarandon’s
liberal activism has spanned over four decades. She has also put her
celebrity behind several Democratic presidential hopefuls, including
John Kerry and John Edwards; called for elections to be monitored by
international authorities; vehemently protested against the invasion
of Iraq; and rallied for the withdrawal of U.S. troops overseas.
Most
recently, Sarandon came under fire for referring
to
Pope
Benedict XVI as a ‘Nazi,’ and spoke out in support of the Occupy
Wall Street movement. But given that President Obama is running for
reelection, some say it is in his best interests to distance himself
from the “Dead Man Walking” star.
“By
any objective standard, Susan is an extremist. Her far-left activism
would have resulted in her being labeled a ‘subversive’ in
decades past, and she is not someone Mr. Obama and his administration
are likely to want to associate with given the upcoming election,”
said California-based attorney, David Wohl. “Sarandon’s recent
labeling of the Pope as a ‘Nazi’ could result in severe damage to
the President’s re-election prospects with Catholic voters should
he invite her to the White House."
Sarandon
may also conside her self-suggested status as a security threat a
boon to her activist reputation.
“If
true, it’s a badge of honor in her circles,” noted Jason Maloni
of Levick Strategic Communications. “Plus I expect she’s not
applying for a government job anytime soon."
Miami valedictorian fighting deportation
By John Couwels, CNN
(CNN)
– An immigration judge has ruled two teenage girls, including a
Miami high school valedictorian, are to be deported for being in the
country illegally.
Daniela
Pelaez, 18, and her sister Dayana came to the United States with
their parents from Colombia 14 years ago and never left - overstaying
their tourist visas.
A
Miami immigration judge ruled this week that the two girls must be
deported to Colombia, leaving the teenagers in shock.
"Education
not deportation!" chanted fellow students Friday during a
protest outside the North Miami Senior High School, where Pelaez is
valedictorian.
The
high school senior has a 6.7 grade point average and is at top of her
class out of 823 students, said a school administrator.
"She's
a good citizen, besides being a brilliant girl," said North
Miami Senior High School administrator Larry Jurrist, who added he
can't understand why the judge decided to deport the girls.
Pelaez
told CNN anchor Suzanne Malveaux Friday that her family has been
battling to stay in the United States legally.
"Colombia
is my roots, but this is all I know," said Pelaez, who has
applied to continue her studies at several top-tier schools,
including Dartmouth College, Duke University and Trinity College.
The
teenager wants to study cellular and molecular biology for a career
in the medical field.
"What
I have worked for since I was 4 years old - to live the American
dream. And I feel like I earned it," she said.
The
teen was shocked by the judge's ruling since her brother was allowed
to become a citizen and is currently serving in the U.S. military. He
has toured in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Immigration
and Customs Enforcement spokesman Nestor Yglesias issued a statement
Thursday on the teens' case that read: "Daniela and Dayana
Pelaez have reserved the right to appeal an immigration judge's
decisions ordering them to return to Colombia. ICE will not take any
action against them while they pursue additional legal options."
The
federal agency could also decide to take no further action, allowing
the girls to remain in the United States.
"Can
you imagine that? Literally putting a postage stamp on her forehead
and send her packing,"
Michael
Wildes,
a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, said about the
case.
"This
is completely out of character for our country," he told CNN. "I
know the courts and the prosecutor will do right by her."
Pelaez
said her attorney will appeal the judge's ruling and the teenager
hopes she will get the opportunity to stay in the United States so
she can decide in April which college to attend.
With
Guilty Verdict, Deportation is Possibility for Ravi
Tuesday,
March 20, 2012
Now
that Dharun Ravi has been convicted of 15 charges related to his use
of a webcam to spy on his gay roommate, he may also face possible
deportation proceedings.
Ravi,
20, is a legal resident who was born in India and spent most of his
life in New Jersey.
Anyone
convicted of a crime that is defined as involving “moral turpitude”
or an aggravated felony can face a deportation proceeding. It’s up
to federal immigration officials to bring the case, and an
immigration judge to make the final determination.
Michael
Wildes, a New Jersey immigration attorney, said federal immigration
officials have discretion on whether to proceed with a deportation
case against Ravi. The former federal prosecutor thinks it is likely
that Ravi will face deportation proceedings.
“There's
a lot of pressure on immigration because of the media and the
attention of the world on this matter and I believe strongly that
they will bring it,” Wildes said.
However,
the determination of whether the convictions involve moral turpitude
or are aggravated felonies is a complicated one, according to David
Isaacson, an immigration attorney with Cyrus D. Mehta and Associates.
It would take him several hours of research, if not days, to
determine how the Ravi convictions fit into the federal statutes,
according to Isaacson.
The
federal law on whether a crime is defined as an aggravated felony
involves 20 sub-sections. The case law on defining moral turpitude
goes back to 1913, Isaacson said. It's a vague legal term used to
describe conduct that is considered contrary to justice, honesty or
morality.
Ravi
was convicted by a New Brunswick jury Friday of invasion of privacy,
bias intimidation, hindering a prosecution and witness tampering.
Ravi’s lawyers said they will appeal the verdict.
A
federal decision on whether to move forward on deportation will
likely be made after Ravi is sentenced in May, since sentencing is
one of the factors that determines whether or not to deport.
The
government does not publish statistics on how many people it attempts
to deport after a felony conviction, according to Transactional
Records Access Clearinghouse,
a Syracuse University institute that tracks federal enforcement
agencies. The institute conducted a study of 156,713 people facing
deportation because they were convicted of aggravated felonies and
found that deportation rates changed depending on the number of years
an immigrant lived here, which country they were from and their legal
status. It also found aggravated felonies usually involved violent or
drug-related crimes.
Defense
begins today in Rutgers webcam case, must
chip away at narrative
chip away at narrative
Thursday,
March 8, 2012 Last updated: Friday March 9, 2012, 8:01 AM
BY
KAREN SUDOL
STAFF
WRITER
The
Record
Prosecutors in Dharun Ravi’s bias intimidation trial have methodically built a brick-by-brick case over the past 10 days, producing two dozen increasingly damaging witnesses and ending with a video of Ravi admitting that he invaded the privacy of his Rutgers roommate, Tyler Clementi.
Now
it’s the defense’s turn.
Ravi
attorneys, Steven Altman and Philip Nettl, face a potential uphill
battle when presenting their defense, given that the state’s case
has unfolded like a novel, with Ravi as the main character. Their
goal will be to plant a seed of reasonable doubt with the jurors, one
that perhaps showcases Ravi as an immature college kid who didn’t
realize the consequences of his actions.
“The
question is, did he intend and actually commit a crime?” said
Michael Wildes, a former federal prosecutor who has also served as
Englewood’s
mayor. “This is what a jury will have to decide.”
Ravi
has been defined by the state as anti-gay and manipulative, someone
who plotted to humiliate Clementi by using a webcam to spy on his
tryst with another man. Clementi jumped from the George Washington
Bridge just days after his first encounter was streamed live.
The
plot has developed slowly, giving jurors time to reflect, as witness
after witness testified that Ravi used Twitter to encourage others to
view a second Clementi tryst, poking holes in the defense’s
contention that the webcam was being used to safeguard Ravi’s iPad.
There
was dorm mate Molly Wei, who said that Ravi set up the webcam that
streamed the first encounter that was viewed in her room. Then came
Rutgers student Lokesh Ojha, who testified that he helped Ravi aim
the camera toward Clementi’s bed. Rutgers police said that Ravi
withheld information as they conducted a search for Clementi, before
they knew his fate.
Clementi’s
companion, cloaked in mystery and identified only as M.B., testified
that he had sex with Clementi on two dates — and saw the webcam and
felt students were staring as he left the dorm room one night. A
“viewing party with a bottle of Bacardi and beer” was also
discussed on the stand.
Technology
provided an unexpected twist, showing that Ravi deleted dozens of
texts between himself and two other students. And a review of
Clementi’s online accounts revealed that he had repeatedly checked
Ravi’s Twitter page in the days and hours before he jumped to his
death.
A
video of Ravi’s interview with investigators provided a fitting
conclusion to the prosecution’s case, letting jurors hear and see
Ravi admit that he invaded Clementi’s privacy, but “didn’t
realize it was something so private.”
While
the defense is expected to last for two days, it’s still not known
if Ravi, of Plainsboro, will testify. If he does, it would likely be
on Monday.
Ravi,
20, faces multiple counts of invasion of privacy, hindering
apprehension and bias intimidation - a hate crime punishable by up to
10 years in prison. Prosecutors say Ravi intended to intimidate
Clementi because he was gay.
A
glimpse of Altman’s plan of attack was revealed Thursday when he
told the judge he would call character witnesses and Rutgers students
to the stand. Also expected are a Middlesex County Prosecutor’s
Office investigator and a Rutgers detective.
The
defense also argued for the dismissal of some of the charges
including invasion of privacy and bias intimidation counts. The judge
later told the attorneys to assume that the charges would all stand
but he would review his notes overnight and could revisit several of
the counts.
In
order to prove the bias intimidation counts, prosecutors must show
that Ravi intimidated Clementi because of his sexual orientation. In
the invasion of privacy charges, they have to demonstrate that Ravi
set out to expose sexual conduct without permission.
Among
Nettl’s arguments were that Ravi didn’t invade Clementi’s
privacy because he had a right to view the contents of his room
regardless of what was happening in it. Another was that the state
hadn’t shown any evidence that Clementi was intimidated or put in
fear because of Ravi’s actions – an element of bias intimidation.
Altman
and Nettl could call witnesses to show that Ravi was not homophobic
and never intended to humiliate or embarrass Clementi. Altman has
maintained that Ravi set up the camera because he was worried his
iPad would be taken by M.B. — which is what Ravi told investigators
during his Sept. 23 police interview.
Altman
has already been successful on cross examination in getting
prosecution witnesses, particularly Rutgers’ students, to say under
oath that Ravi hadn’t expressed any hatred toward Clementi and
wasn’t homophobic.
Wei
also bolstered the defense’s case when she said Ravi told her he
set up the webcam because he was concerned M.B. would take his iPad.
She had also been charged with invasion of privacy but accepted a
plea deal that required her to testify.
Prosecutors
have contended Ravi’s theory of why he used the webcam was an
excuse and the interview was an example of him covering up his
actions.
Chris
Leibig, a Washington, D.C.-based criminal defense attorney of 16
years who has been following the case, said while the defense has a
big burden, they would do well to “humanize Mr. Ravi and make
obvious that this was not his intention and that he didn’t harbor
any specific anti-gay bias.”
“They
need to build on the fact that, yes, he acted like an immature jerk,
but this is not a criminal case,” he said.
Under Obama, guest-worker visa policy creates left-right conflict
Non-resident visitors to the United States have their passports checked at immigration control after arriving at McCarran International Airport, Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2011, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)
Under
the Obama administration, skilled foreign professionals like doctors
and software engineers find dim hope in Emma Lazarus’s poetic lamp
lifted “beside the golden door.” These huddled, high tech masses
are, quite often, told by Washington policymakers to consider
launching their careers in other countries.
One
physician trained in South Africa, for example, recently applied for
a visa to work in the U.S. Despite the shortage of skilled doctors in
America, the Obama administration failed to grant him “extraordinary
worker” status. For him, there will be no work at a pharmaceutical
company, no hospital shifts, and no opportunity to start his own
consulting firm.
New
York City immigration attorney Andrew P. Johnson, who represented
that doctor, told The Daily Caller that the administration concluded
his client — who also has a master’s degree in public health —
should work at a “non-profit.” The federal government, he said,
put the doctor through a “bureaucratic labyrinth,” and eventually
restricted his job mobility once he was in the U.S.
“He
was eventually forced to be based in Europe,” Johnson told TheDC.
Only
85,000 skilled foreign workers, including doctors and those with
master’s degrees in technical subjects, are allowed in the U.S.
every year to fill jobs
in Silicon Valley, high-tech hospitals, and engineering firms. That’s
fewer than are needed: The U.S. continues to lag behind the rest of
the developed world in new graduates of university science,
technology and mathematics programs.
A
properly working guest worker program is “important to our economic
growth,” Michael Wildes, another New York immigration lawyer told
TheDC.
But
progressive think tanks like the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and
other liberal interest groups are pressuring the administration to
drag its feet even more. The left claims foreign professionals are
being hired here because they are cheaper to employ than American
workers, and that U.S. employers like Siemens, Pfizer and others
treat them like indentured servants.
Foreigners,
they say, are often hired before Americans are given the chance to
interview for a job. “Many firms exploit these loopholes for
competitive advantage and profit, at the expense of American workers
and the American economy,” Ron Hira, an EPI research associate,
wrote
in a recent U.S. News & World Report op-ed.
Meanwhile,
a bi-partisan bill to bolster business
worker immigration, sponsored by Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin and
Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, languishes in the U.S. Senate.
At
a time of persistent high unemployment in the U.S. and increasing
public concern about immigration and border control, liberal policy
wonks argue, Congress may be receptive to the idea that the law
should require employers to offer Americans jobs before offering them
to foreign nationals.
On
the opposite end of the policy spectrum is the argument that
reforming America’s “guest worker” program would prevent the
U.S. economy from falling even further behind.
The
guest
worker program, overseen
by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services inside the Department
of Homeland Security, includes the “H-1B” guest worker visas, “L”
visas for foreign employees of U.S. companies, and “O” visas for
those the government considers “extraordinarily” talented.
Johnson
worries that it has been more than a decade since business
immigration visa law was last brought up to date.
“Nowadays,
with outsourcing so common,” he told TheDC, “those jobs can
primarily be lost to other nations, or the U.S. company can operates
overseas.”
Allowing
the immigration of more skilled managers who already work for
technology employers like Microsoft or IBM, says the American
Immigration Lawyers Association, would also be good for the American
economy.
“Individuals
are coming to establish a new entity related to their employer
abroad, thus planting a seed of opportunity for U.S. workers,” AILA
president Eleanor Pelta said.
Johnson
claimed that rather than seeing this shortcoming as an economic
development issue, the Obama administration and liberals in Congress
are postponing change in order to make it part of “comprehensive
immigration reform,” a strategy that would include an amnesty
proposal for illegal
aliens.
“When
there are enough qualified U.S. applicants, the government can reduce
the number of visas available,” he explained. “But if we ignore
the shortages — in engineering, IT and medicine — a U.S. company
will set up operations outside the U.S., or outsource the job, and we
will have lost another taxpayer.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)