European countries are the focus of flows of people coming from different countries in search of a better quality of life. However, irregular migration has increased in 2022 on almost all routes, except for the Western Mediterranean. In response, France has begun diplomatic efforts with Italy and the UK to find solutions.

According to Frontex, 155,090 people had crossed European borders irregularly, 86 per cent more than in the same period in 2021. The reasons for the increased migration flow include the economic crisis, the food crisis due to the invasion of Ukraine, as well as other armed conflicts in Africa and other countries xxx gratuit.


On the other hand, the UK has received 40,000 people entering across the Channel from France so far this year. This is more than the 28,561 people registered last year. Most of them are Albanians, Iranians and Afghans.



To deal with the situation, the UK has pledged 72.2 million euros, while France will increase its troop presence in the north of the country by 40 per cent, equivalent to an additional 100 officers. Both countries will also have observers on both sides of the channel.

This agreement comes after Rishi Sunak took over as prime minister, which shows an improvement in relations. However, the UK says there is “no miracle solution” to curb irregular migration, UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman said in a statement.


Meanwhile, during the week of 6 November, tensions between France and Italy escalated after the latter refused to give access to a humanitarian rescue ship with 234 migrants on board, forcing France to accept it. This prompted France to suspend an EU solidarity pact, under which it was to relocate 3,000 migrants relocated from Italy.


After the incident, presidents Sergio Mattarella and Emmanuel Macron held a telephone conversation in which they agreed on a policy of “full cooperation”, both bilaterally and within the EU, to deal with migration, and other issues.
However, Mattarella has no real power in day-to-day government in Italy, but Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who heads the new far-right leadership.


It will be difficult to see a change of strategy on Italy’s part, as one of Meloni’s promises was that the country would no longer be the main port of entry for migrants travelling across the Mediterranean.

So far this year, according to Frontex, a total of almost 43,000 people have landed in Italy and Malta. However, the burden is on the former, as Malta has registered the entry of only 30 people, compared to 300 at the same time last year. Most of the boats with migrants come from Libya and Tunisia, although the majority nationalities are Egyptians and Bangladeshis, according to the report.







Have you ever heard of Costa Brava? If you usually do tourism in Spain, possibly yes. Being the coastal area that covers the entire stretch from Blanes to PortBou, border with France, it is one of the most visited destinations for its delicious climate and fabulous maritime environment.

Until recently, its immeasurable growth was welcomed with open arms by locals and local business owners. However, in recent months, the opposite has happened. Bars, hotels and other establishments have had to reduce their operations.

The reason? Far from facing a problem of low tourism, they face the opposite: a terrible lack of workers. This scenario, as well as many others throughout the country, has driven government policies aimed at repopulation.


And no, we are not only talking about these “programs” where they seek to mobilize the population to the periphery in exchange for benefits. We are talking about real changes in immigration policies, which encourage a young and capable workforce to move to that country.



Let’s look at the statistics. According to official sources, approximately five million foreigners live in Spain. Most of them, from Latin America and with an irregular migratory situation or, at least, unfavorable. Let’s remember that this is an official number, which may well be insufficient compared to the real number.

Most of these immigrants find themselves in vicious legal circles xnxx, which do not allow them to establish themselves legally to start enjoying the benefits that the country could offer them as citizens. That is where the new Immigration Law Reform comes in.

Its main objective is the due process of those who are in an irregular situation, providing an opportunity to obtain residence and work permits, hoping to fill the vacancies with the greatest demand in the country.




One of the main foreign groups that will benefit will be foreign students enrolled in Spanish education centers.
One of the main problems so far with the Spanish student visa was the work limitation. While they were studying, they could not work legally to pay for them. This situation gave rise to underhanded hiring, often under unfavorable conditions for the worker.


The new reform, among other things, will give them access to legal work for 30 hours a week. Likewise, once the studies are completed, the student may stay up to one more year without requesting an extension of their visa. Even, under certain specific criteria, said student may access a work authorization. This legal figure is specially designed for profiles with high demand and low supply in the country.


Another of the cases contemplated in the reform is access to a temporary residence of up to 12 months if the foreigner acquires a commitment with the state to train in a high-demand labor area.

This modality is incorporated into the list of roots that were already contemplated in the Immigration Law:

  • Social roots.
  • Labor roots.


The function of the reform in this space is to make existing conditions more flexible, both for temporary and regular workers.

Let us remember that, until recently, it was possible to access a temporary residence after hiring a Spanish company or organization in your country of origin. The idea is to provide the best and most demanded profiles with benefits that allow them to access temporary or permanent residence more quickly and efficiently.


As a last key point, the reform supposes an improvement in the general conditions to achieve a family reunification of foreign units in Spain.


One of the key elements is the immediate obtaining of work and residence permits at the time of entering the Spanish dream. Likewise, considerable flexibility is observed when the cases involve minors, people with disabilities or in any situation of vulnerability.

And you, what do you think of these measures? Do you consider that they can be seen as an improvement for the life of foreigners in Spain?




Ready-made funds: Questions for Mark Simenstad, vice president of fixed income investments

Q: What is your job as head of fixed income mutual fund investments at Thrivent Financial for Lutherans?

A: I oversee the management of all of Thrivent Investment Management’s fixed income mutual funds and separate accounts, including the management of high yield assets in Thrivent Financial’s general account. I also have responsibility for Thrivent Investment Management’s bond research and fixed income trading departments.

Q: Recently, Thrivent Investment Management began offering “ready-made” asset allocation mutual funds. What is the philosophy behind these funds?

A: When investors work with their Thrivent Financial representative to determine their overall risk temperament, they can select a Thrivent Asset Allocation Fund to match. That fund, diversified across both the fixed income and equity markets, will continue to be automatically reallocated on a quarterly basis by the Thrivent Investment Strategy Committee, of which I am a part. Think of it as “one-stop” asset allocation. These funds invest established percentages of an investor’s portfolio across a range of asset classes to provide instant diversification and competitive risk-adjusted returns.

Q: What sort of investor is best suited for this type of mutual fund?

A: These funds may be well suited for an investor who wants a simplified investment solution, yet still needs the benefits of diversification and professional, institutional-quality money management.

Q: How can an automatically reallocating mutual fund benefit an investor?

A: As markets ebb and flow, it’s important to take advantage of asset classes that may have declined in value, while paring positions in areas that may have done well. The Thrivent Asset Allocation Funds provide this service because the funds are constantly monitored and reallocated, or “tweaked,” to take advantage of changing market conditions and to keep the portfolios in line with their stated asset allocation targets. Individuals often don’t have the time or inclination to keep up with these market changes, much less find the time to do something about it.

Q: Is it true that what’s bad for the equity markets is often good for bonds? Why?

A: That certainly can be the case at times in the short run when investors respond to economic concerns or falling stock prices by moving to the perceived safety of bonds. However, in the long run, stock and bond prices are more apt to move in a similar fashion in response to long-term perceptions of inflation and the economy.

Q: In a rising interest rate environment like we’re in now, what should investors do with their bond allocations?

A: When rates rise, shorter maturity bond profiles typically perform better than long-term bond portfolios. It’s best for investors to maintain a mix of bond funds, including high-yield, corporate and mortgage-backed bond funds, to maximize returns from bond interest income, while minimizing bond price declines that can come from rising interest rates. Above all else, don’t abandon an allocation to bonds just because interest rates are heading higher. Bonds offer a valuable counterbalance to stocks. Talk to a Thrivent Financial representative for specific help.

Q: Should even young investors have at least some portion of their portfolios allocated to fixed-income funds?

A: Yes, almost always. Young investors are often told to buy stocks over bonds, but a sound approach is to have a portion in bond funds when you are younger for diversification and gradually increase that percentage as you age. The ratio of stocks to bonds depends on an individual’s risk temperament and time horizon.

Q: Turning to the economy, oil costs seem to have settled in at more than $50 barrel. What does this mean long term for fixed-income investors?

A: Two possibilities exist. If higher oil prices prove to be inflationary, as businesses push their higher energy costs on to consumers via higher retail prices, then bond prices may move lower as interest rates move higher. Conversely, if higher oil prices become a drag on the economy, then bond prices will likely be more resilient as interest rates remain at relatively lower levels.

Q: Will recent steep increases in natural gas and heating oil costs have a similar effect?

A: Yes, particularly given how these costs will impact the consumer even more than gasoline prices, as heating costs are expected to be more than 50 percent higher than last season.

Q: Inflation continues to creep upward despite the Fed’s rate tightening. How can investors combat inflation in this environment?

A: First of all, make sure your portfolio is diversified. In the fixed-income market, investors can make an allocation to TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities). These securities have their principal value adjusted upward by the level of inflation in a given time period. But over the long run, having a diversified mix of bond and equity funds can help minimize the effect inflation might have on your portfolio.

Q: What do you make of longtime Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s January 31 retirement and his replacement Ben Bernanke?

A: The choice of Ben Bernanke to replace Alan Greenspan has already been well received by the financial markets. We like this choice as well. Bernanke is widely regarded as a top monetary expert and he has widespread respect from key economic policy makers, including members of the Federal Reserve Board. He is very clear in his views on the importance of keeping inflation in check. This is the primary job of the successful monetary policy, and ultimately for the financial markets.


Fair Treatment for Undocumented Students

Education is often said to be a key to success and one of the best ways to realize the American Dream. However, approximately 50,000-65,000 foreign-born students graduate from U.S. high schools each year only to realize that their diplomas do not grant them access to higher education. These students – among them valedictorians and award winners – are prevented from pursuing their educations because their parents brought them to the United States without legal status. About 1.1 million students are undocumented, representing 2 percent of the total student population. NOTE 1 Most often these students entered the country when they were too young to understand how they arrived. Currently, there are no avenues for them to acquire legal status or become citizens because they cannot obtain family-based sponsorship from their undocumented parents. The obstacles these students face concern many community members, including teachers, public officials, and immigrant advocates. In response to this problem, lawmakers of both parties have proposed solutions.

The DREAM Act and the Student Adjustment Act
Two bipartisan measures have been introduced in the 108th Congress to address the needs of undocumented students: the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) and the Student Adjustment Act, both of which are now pending in Congress. The DREAM Act, S. 1545, was introduced in the Senate by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) on July 31, 2003. This bill would grant “conditional permanent resident” status to students who came to the United States prior to the age of 16, have lived in the United States for at least five years at the time of enactment, graduated from high school, and demonstrated good moral status. Conditional permanent residence is different from lawful permanent residence in that it would be awarded for a period of six years instead of indefinitely. Time spent by students in conditional permanent resident status would count towards the residency requirements for naturalization to U.S. citizenship. An extension would be granted after the six-year period upon a showing of good cause. Furthermore, the Department of Homeland Security would have the power to waive the conditional residence requirement altogether if compelling reasons prevent their completion and if the removal of the student would result in extreme hardship to the student’s spouse, parent, or child.
The companion to the DREAM Act, the Student Adjustment Act, H.R. 1684, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Chris Cannon (R-UT), Howard Berman (D-CA), and Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) on April 9, 2003. The bill would allow young people under 21 years of age to adjust to permanent resident status if they have lived in the United States for at least five years, are in 7th grade or above, and have good moral character. In addition, it would amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to again permit states to determine residency for in-state tuition purposes. Thus, students would be able to afford the rising costs of higher education, the dream that they have worked for so many years to attain.

A Matter of Fairness
The DREAM Act (and the Student Adjustment Act) is based on the principle that it is unfair to punish children for the actions of their parents. The courts have found that “legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility wrongdoing” [Weber v. Aetna Causalty and Surety Co. 406 U.S. 164, 175 (1972)] and that undocumented children “can affect neither their parents’ conduct nor their own status” [Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 220 (1982)]. NOTE 2 Thus, undocumented students cannot be held liable for an immigration status that resulted from their parents’ actions, and the federal government cannot continue to punish them by denying the opportunity for adjustment of status and a higher education.
It also would be unfair to deny undocumented immigrants in-state tuition rates because they, like other state residents, pay taxes that support public universities. The Internal Revenue Service began issuing Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers in 1996, with Congressional support, so that undocumented immigrants could pay taxes. Since then, about 7 million undocumented immigrants have contributed to the tax pool. NOTE 3 Some state governments have realized that the parents of undocumented students continually pay state taxes, as opposed to parents of out-of-state students. Since these students are raised in-state, they will most likely remain in the state after graduation and therefore provide increased tax revenues as members of an educated workforce.
Moreover, the DREAM Act would not give preferential treatment to undocumented immigrants. If the DREAM Act is passed, then undocumented immigrants would compete in the college-applicant pool along with other state residents, non-residents, and foreign students. The most qualified students would be selected and the rest would have to pursue their educational dreams by attending a different porno university or community college.
Benefits of the DREAM Act
Equal Opportunity: The DREAM Act would provide undocumented students with the same opportunity as their classmates to become productive members of society.
Reduced Drop-Out Rates: Because of their immigration status and the associated barriers to higher education, undocumented students are more likely to drop out of high school than students who are U.S. citizens. The high drop-out rate of students in the United States costs taxpayers and the economy billions of dollars each year. If the DREAM Act is enacted, it would help lower drop-out rates and motivate undocumented students to continue their education after graduation from high school.
Fiscal Advantages: By increasing the number of students who graduate from high school, the DREAM Act would increase tax revenues and reduce government expenses. A 1999 study by the RAND Corporation found that an average, middle-aged immigrant woman who graduates from college pays $5,300 more in taxes and uses $3,900 less in criminal justice and social welfare services each year than if she had dropped out of high school, amounting to a fiscal contribution of $9,200.

Economic Advantages: Demographers and economists such as Alan Greenspan have stated that the United States is facing a long-term labor crunch that will threaten our economy in decades to come. This means a shortage of workers in teaching, nursing, the service sector, and other occupations. The beneficiaries of the DREAM Act could be a part of the solution to this problem because they will most likely become productive workers, homeowners, and investors. NOTE 5

The DREAM Act would provide undocumented students with the same opportunities as other students, thereby helping them to realize the American Dream. These accomplished individuals deserve to be rewarded for doing the right thing, not punished. We as a society would benefit a great deal from investing in further educating undocumented students so they can reach their full potential. Giving them this opportunity also provides them with the skills and knowledge needed by the U.S. economy.

How To Work Effectively to Stop Mass Immigration



CCN and the other ASAP! Coalition members are fortunate because we have the most convincing and positive reasons for stopping mass immigration.

All members of the ASAP! Coalition advocate U.S. population stabilization. We know how many benefits would be achieved by stabilization. We can talk truthfully about the benefits of population stabilization, including environmental protection, budget relief, reduction of ethnic tensions, reduced costs for schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure, and, not the least, providing the necessary conditions for the long-term sustainability of the U.S.A. at a reasonable standard of living and quality of life.

The fact is that if an organization’s goal is U.S. population stabilization, the most generous immigration position it can unhypocritically advocate is a moratorium on all immigration in excess of 100,000 per year, because this is the highest legal immigration level which would make U.S. population stabilization possible. The rationale for this position is explained in more detail elsewhere in this Series.



Any organization which does not advocate, as a first priority, a moratorium on all legal immigration in excess of 100,000 per year is just kidding around, much to the detriment of those who are sincere. That organization is not really serious about achieving U.S. population stabilization.

Failure to advocate a low, all-inclusive number undercuts our most convincing rationale for a moratorium — that U.S. population stabilization is a necessary, absolutely essential step toward protecting the environment for the long term and achieving a sustainable economy to secure our children’s future.

The most ineffective and counterproductive positions in the immigration reform movement are those which would not lead to stabilization or which undercut those positions that do. Some national immigration “reform” organizations fail to advocate positions which would achieve their ostensible goals. It is thus not surprising that the immigration reduction movement has not had any significant victories for over two decades. Indeed, one national organization does not push any particular numerical limit at all! This undercuts other organizations that try to give activists, and members of Congress, a “rallying point” number that incorporates a rationale for lower numbers.



An elementary principle of successfully lobbying for immigration reduction is that organizations should not take positions on immigration levels which are higher than the numbers which are contained in the bills sponsored by our allies in Congress who support reductions.

If “reform” organizations do take such “higher” positions, they not only undercut the efforts of our Congressional allies, but also eliminate all leverage we would gain by advocating numbers lower than our Congressional supporters’. Incredibly, one national organization is pushing such a higher position.>

Example: The recommendation by one national immigration “reform” organization that we build a coalition of members of Congress to consider the recommendations for legal immigration reduction made by the Jordan Commission is counterproductive. (See below: The Jordan Commission recommended legal immigration of 700,000 annually, whereas the best and most-forward-looking legislation currently before Congress targets 300,000 annually.)

Undercut #1

Late last Summer, one national organization recommended in a fundraising letter that we “build a coalition of members of Congress to at least begin considering the recommendations for legal immigration reduction made by Barbara Jordan’s national bi-partisan commission.”

But the primary recommendation of the Jordan Commission is that the level of legal immigration be 700,000/year/annually. Thus, advocating the Jordan Commission’s number undercuts the pending Tancredo Moratorium Bill (HR 2712) which caps legal immigration at 300,000/year. Pushing for the Jordan Commission’s numbers or similar numbers not only undercuts the numbers in the Moratorium Bill (HR 2712), it undercuts our allies in Congress who co-sponsor it!

Indeed, advocacy of the Jordan Commission’s numbers undercuts the entire tradition of advocacy of much lower numbers by our allies in Congress. Rep. Bob Stump (R-Az), for example, introduced bills in several sessions of Congress in the 1990’s, which would have both enacted a moratorium and capped numbers at a level much lower than the Jordan Commission.

Indeed, while the Commission in general and the heroic Barbara Jordan in particular did admirable work, the political document produced after her death, and the numbers of legal immigrants recommended — about 700,000 per year — even if enacted, are not nearly low enough to ever allow U.S. population to stabilize. From a political perspective, starting with such a relatively high number provides no environmental carrying capacity rationale and no political leverage whatsoever for lower numbers.

Focusing on the Jordan Commission’s recommendations in general would direct attention away from our side’s rationale for much lower numbers: protection of future generations, the economy, and the environment that sustain them.

It should be noted that there were some good recommendations in the Jordan Report — that the INS be split into an “enforcement” division and a “service division,” for example. But unqualified advocacy of the Jordan Commission’s recommendations is counterproductive.

Undercut #2

The currently pending HR 2712 would explicitly “enact a moratorium” on most categories of immigration, and limit the rest. But two national organizations refuse to explicitly push the moratorium that HR 2712 would enact, although one half heartedly says it supports the bill. How can reductionists ever achieve significant reductions unless they communicate the message that the U.S.A. is “full” and we need no more mass immigration. And how can we support those members of Congress who sponsor the “moratorium” explicit in HR 2712 unless we explicitly push a moratorium.

Regardless of how many “professional lobbyists” a “reform” organization has on The Hill, hamstringing them by not allowing them to explicitly push a moratorium negates their effectiveness in obtaining reductions.

Undercut #3

That national organization advocating trying to create a coalition of members of Congress to re-examine the Jordan Commission’s recommendations may not be aware that those Jordan recommendations were discussed by Congress and the Clinton Administration prior to the 1996 bill. Those recommendations incorporated the principle of incremental reductions, and reductions in some categories.

But those immigration “reform” organizations’ path of starting high (as, e.g., with the Jordan Commission’s recommendations) with the hope of achieving incremental reductions or reductions in some categories is a failed path, as has been demonstrated repeatedly for over 20 years. Indeed, one organization pushed a bill which capped the numbers at 780,000 in 1996 — predictably, we got no reductions.

Advocates for reducing immigration who truly want to be effective need to argue for the most persuasive rationale: 100,000 legal immigrants a year for five years followed by 200,000 a year (and a moratorium on all categories above those), because these are the highest numbers that would ever allow the United States’ population to eventually stabilize. Pushing a position which incorporates the failed strategy of 1996 and earlier years undercuts those organizations and the members of Congress who are pushing positions which can succeed, if all organizations get behind them.


Tactical Point #1

Advocating “reforms” or reductions only in certain categories of immigrants without advocating an all-inclusive moratorium is ineffective, because it implicitly grants the opposition’s basic premise: that some substantial level of mass immigration is good. Only the word and concept “moratorium” communicates the message: The U.S.A. is full, we want no more mass immigration.
The opposition must be asked to justify any substantial level of immigration. Advocating a moratorium as our “default position” forces the opposition to justify exceptions to this position. And, while they may be able to justify some immigration (of some law-abiding spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, for example), they certainly cannot justify mass immigration that drives explosive U.S. population growth with all its negative consequences for national security, the environment, and the economy.

Only if we explicitly advocate an all-inclusive moratorium do we force the opposition to engage in such a basic examination and attempted justification of mass immigration. The only bill in Congress which would result in a substantial reduction in overall numbers is HR 2712 — an all-inclusive explicit “Moratorium” Bill. It is, thus, counterproductive to support any other bill or any position with higher numbers.

Tactical Point #2

Since bills increasing mass immigration may pop up under as-yet-unknown euphemisms, the only way to effectively anticipate and oppose such bills is to advocate an all-encompassing moratorium and only a moratorium. That not only puts pressure on any and all immigration-increasing bills, but also generates pressure for lower numbers at the same time! No other position has all these positives…. A Moratorium Bill anticipates and foils circumvention.

Tactical Point #3

The immigration “reform” movement’s unblemished record of legislative losses over the past two decades can be traced in large part to pushing for reductions using the “category approach.” Merely opposing a specific increase in any particular category, e.g., H-1B visas, asylees, or extended family members, is almost always a strategic, tactical, political, and public relations mistake. Such use of a “category approach” implicitly sends the counterproductive message that the current phenomenon of mass immigration (of over one million legal immigrants per year) is more or less acceptable, because reduction of only a few categories is advocated.

This “category approach” to “reform” plays into the hands of the opposition — the proponents of mass immigration. Trying to reduce individual categories results in the ultimate numbers being the outcome of horse trading, pressure tactics, and intense lobbying by wealthy special interests — areas in which our opposition is skilled, powerful, and well financed.

If the immigration “reform” organization you support fails to explicitly push a moratorium as the first priority, ask them how they can effectively oppose all the different bills (including those with deceptive titles like “regularization,” which would increase immigration) without explicitly supporting an all-inclusive moratorium. And ask them how they expect realistically to achieve any reductions (in light of 20 years of failure to do so) without advocating an all-inclusive moratorium.

Why should any of us support policies which do not work??

Brain Drain Saps Former Soviet Union of Scientists

Proposed congressional budget cuts hint at tough times ahead for American scientists who compete for an ever-shrinking pot of federal dollars to fund their projects. Several visiting scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks have already seen the crumbling of national support for science in their home country, and it’s not a pretty sight.

They’re from the former Soviet Union, a society that puts more value on bus drivers than scientists. Scientists at the U.S.S.R Academy of Sciences in Moscow “may earn 750 rubles a month, while a trolleybus driver in Moscow may earn 1,200-1,400 rubles a month,” wrote Leonid V. Ksanfomality, former laboratory chief at the Academy’s Space Research Institute, in 1991. “Both academic and applied sciences now are pushed aside entirely in a society in upheaval, where science and technology seem less relevant than buying bread and meat.”

The change in priorities that followed the democratization of the former Soviet Union chased away many scientists, who took with them their knowledge to solve health, environmental and other problems now plaguing the country. Like many top researchers, Geophysical Institute Research Associate of Atmospheric Sciences Victor Filyushkin was part of the brain drain of scientists who sought better opportunity in another country.

Filyushkin, a whiz in math and physics as a teenager, enrolled at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology at age 17. After earning his masters and doctorate degree and working at the Central Aerological Observatory in Moscow, his research was impressive enough to earn him an invitation to work as a visiting scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, in 1990. From there he went on to the University of Oklahoma, where he helped develop a computer model showing how clouds can affect climate change. This work led him to the Geophysical Institute, where he is supported by funds from the U.S. Department of Energy to study climate change in the Arctic. Filyushkin said scientific research in the United States differs from that in the former Soviet Union in quality; especially computers; and the competitiveness required to secure funding.

“The competition is very tough,” he said. “You know how this country runs—it’s a market system. If you don’t have something to offer, you won’t stay around.”

In the pre-breakup Soviet Union, scientists were assured funds from the government once they worked their way up to a senior position. Research money came primarily from the government, with a large chunk from the military. After the cold war ended in 1989, research funding from the military “practically disappeared,” said Leonid Yurganov, an atmospheric scientist now working temporarily at the Geophysical Institute.

Yurganov, of St. Petersburg, formerly worked in the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute in St. Petersburg. His research on carbon monoxide levels in the air is funded in part by the International Science Foundation, a $100 million endowment set up by New York billionaire George Soros to pump some life into Soviet science.

When Yurganov’s present grant runs out in August, he’ll write a proposal to get another one. His options are limited back home, where he recently had to moonlight to make ends meet. When he was in St. Petersburg last November, he translated Russian to English for other scientists instead of doing research full-time.

“It’s a depression; a stagnation in the industry,” Yurganov said of science in his homeland. Brain drain symptoms may already be appearing in the former Soviet Union, a country facing serious air, water and soil pollution. Hopefully, those in the U.S. Congress will take note of what can happen when the best and brightest are forced to look elsewhere because of withering national support.

The issue of separated families of US legal residents: a proposed legislation

When a Legal Permanent Resident of the US marries a person residing outside the US it takes approximately four years before they can live in the US as a family! This is due to our current Immigration laws that has separated families rather than unify them. This coupled with the fact that millions of ‘undocumented aliens’ that were accorded legal status under the 1986 amnesty program has overwhelmed the current quota system by sponsoring their immediate relatives since the 90s. The current backlog stands at approximately 1.05 million spouses and minor children of Legal Permanent Residents of the US. Of this approximately 70% are ‘beneficiaries of legalized aliens’. The obvious question is what happens to them aliens that were legal to begin with, them that played by the rules? Simple: they got screwed!! All for being law abiding!

Current waiting times are four years and increasing and its our aim through APSR to renew efforts to have Congress pass legislation to allow visiting rights to separated spouses and minor children which is tearing our families apart! Currently spouses and minor children of Legal Permanent Residents are refused visiting visas for the fear they may never return to their home country after the visit since one of the spouses is resident in the US.

Legislative Background

A major immigration bill IMMACT90 passed in 1990 was aimed at overhauling the nations immigration laws. It did not improve the situation for legal permanent residents in their efforts to unify their family. Since then Congress has dealt with unification of spouses of Permanent Residents on three separate occasions. Each time after having introduced appropriate legislation it failed to turn into law despite bipartisan support.

Following are the details of the bills introduced:
HR 4275 and S 2385 in the 102nd Congress and HR 3182 and S 618 in the 103rd Congress. Most recently the JORDAN COMMISSION (1995) which convened to recommend appropriate legislation overwhelmingly supported family unification issues for legal permanent residents of the US. PSR testified both before Congress and the JORDAN COMMISSION. However to-date nothing has happened to resolve the issue.

It is however no mean task to convince Congress and keep them aware of our suffering. It is our personal opinion that Congress may ultimately be ripe to pass appropriate legislation to address this issue in the 105th Congress. Please support APSR in its lobbying efforts and write your Congressman.

You do not have to be a member of APSR to feel the pain of separation. This is a humanitarian issue!

We would like to introduce legislation in Congress to address the following issues affecting separated families of US LEGAL RESIDENTS:

1) Legislation to create visiting visas for spouse and minor children of US LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS that are waiting for permanent visas to become available. Incorporate ‘DUAL INTENT’ provision into law to alleviate suffering of separated families. NO ALTERATION OF CURRENT QUOTA SYSTEM IS RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME. The proposed legislation is not aimed at reforming the current LEGAL IMMIGRATION system.

2) Such visas are to be given for a period of 90 days minimum renewable upto 180 days with all restrictions of the ‘entitlement bar’ applicable as outlined in the IIRRA ACT OF 1996. It must be made clear to Congress at this time that the intent of this legislation is purely humanitarian not to beat the system!

Congress has already seen legislation introduced to address this issue specifically in the 102nd and 103rd Congress.

3) Currently there are 1.05 million spouse and minor children waiting to join their families permanently in the US. This is a direct result of the Legalization of Beneficiaries program. Address this issue through appropriate legislation. LEGAL RESIDENTS that have abided by the law at all times cannot be equated with those that have attained Legal Status through the amnesty program.

4) Implement recommendations of the JORDAN COMMISSION report of 1995 to unify separated families of LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS with immediate effect. Congress cannot continue to ignore this issue and espouse the cause of HUMAN RIGHTS and FAMILY VALUES throughout the world! The right of families is to be together not separated by inhuman laws such as enacted by Congress.