Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Fox threatens to become a pay-TV channel if courts greenlight Aereo, probably doesn't mean it

Fox threatens to become a payTV cable channel if courts greenlight Aereo, probably doesn't mean it

Quick: what's the difference between a broadcast TV network (Fox, CBS, ABC and NBC) and a cable channel (TBS, TNT, ESPN, etc.)? Oh, only millions and millions of viewers. Nevertheless, Fox's COO Chase Carey is perturbed enough by the mere thought of Aereo getting its way, that he's already claiming that the network will go dark in favor of becoming a cable channel -- if and when OTA network streaming over the internet is completely legalized, that is. Causticism aside, Carey's remarks are certainly indicative of how the networks feel about the potential disruption of their revenue stream, and moreover, showcases just how far we are from living in a world that isn't dominated by the same old processes when it comes to entertainment.

Carey stated: "We need to be able to be fairly compensated for our content. This is not an ideal path we look to pursue, but we can't sit idly by and let an entity steal our signal. We will move to a subscription model if that's our only recourse."

Is it possible that Fox would suddenly vanish from over-the-air antennas everywhere, screwing up countless programming agreements with a near-endless amount of partners? Sure... but it's also possible that the ninth circle of Hades will be converted into an NHL arena. We're calling your bluff, Carey.

Filed under: , ,

Comments

Source: Bloomberg

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/08/fox-threatens-cable-channel-aereo-court-battle/

dick clark Happy new year fiscal cliff Pitbull Hannah Storm Psy fergie

Cry me a river of possibility: Scientists design new adaptive material inspired by tears

Apr. 8, 2013 ? Imagine a tent that blocks light on a dry and sunny day, and becomes transparent and water-repellent on a dim, rainy day. Or highly precise, self-adjusting contact lenses that also clean themselves. Or pipelines that can optimize the rate of flow depending on the volume of fluid coming through them and the environmental conditions outside.

A team of researchers at the Wyss Institute at Harvard University and Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) just moved these enticing notions much closer to reality by designing a new kind of adaptive material with tunable transparency and wettability features, as reported yesterday in the online version of Nature Materials.

"The beauty of this system is that it's adaptive and multifunctional," said senior author Joanna Aizenberg, Ph.D., a Core Faculty member at the Wyss Institute and the Amy Smith Berylson Professor of Materials Science at SEAS.

The new material was inspired by dynamic, self-restoring systems in Nature, such as the liquid film that coats your eyes. Individual tears join up to form a dynamic liquid film with an obviously significant optical function that maintains clarity, while keeping the eye moist, protecting it against dust and bacteria, and helping to transport away any wastes -- doing all of this and more in literally the blink of an eye.

The bioinspired material is a continuous liquid film that coats, and is infused in, an elastic porous substrate -- which is what makes it so versatile. It is based on a core concept: any deformation of the substrate -- such as stretching, poking, or swelling -- changes the size of the pores, which causes the liquid surface to change its shape.

With this design architecture in place, the team has thus far demonstrated the ability to dynamically control -- with great precision -- two key functions: transparency and wettability, said Xi Yao, Ph.D, Wyss Institute and SEAS postdoctoral fellow, and lead author of the study.

Sitting at rest, the material is smooth, clear and flat; droplets of water or oil on its surface flow freely off of the material. Stretching the material makes the fluid surface rougher, Yao explained. The rough surface makes it opaque for one thing, and enables one to do something never possible before: It offers the ability to make every droplet of oil or water that is placed on it reversibly start and stop in their tracks. This capability is far superior to the "switchable wettability" of other adaptive materials that exist today, Yao said, which simply switch between two states -- from hydrophobic (water-hating) to hydrophilic (water-loving).

"In addition to transparency and wettability, we can fine-tune basically anything that would respond to a change in surface topography, such as adhesive or anti-fouling behavior," Yao said. They can also design the porous elastic solid such that it responds dynamically to temperature, light, magnetic or electric fields, chemical signals, pressure, or other environmental conditions, he said.

The material is a next generation of a materials platform that Aizenberg pioneered a few years ago called SLIPS. SLIPS stands for Slippery Liquid-Infused Porous Surfaces, and is a coating that repels just about anything with which it comes into contact -- from oil to water and blood.

But whereas SLIPS is a liquid-infused rigid porous surface, "the new material is a liquid-infused elastic porous surface, which is what allows for the fine control over so many adaptive responses above and beyond its ability to repel a wide range of substances. A whole range of surface properties can now be tuned, or switched on and off on demand, through stimulus-induced deformation of the elastic material," Aizenberg said.

"This sophisticated new class of adaptive materials being designed by the Institute's Adaptive Materials Technologies platform led by Joanna Aizenberg have the potential to be game-changers in everything from oil and gas pipelines, to microfluidic and optical systems, building design and construction, textiles, and more," said Wyss Founding Director Donald Ingber, M.D., Ph.D.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. Xi Yao, Yuhang Hu, Alison Grinthal, Tak-Sing Wong, L. Mahadevan, Joanna Aizenberg. Adaptive fluid-infused porous films with tunable transparency and wettability. Nature Materials, 2013; DOI: 10.1038/nmat3598

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/~3/A0jhz_88ZzI/130408085127.htm

brandon marshall ryder cup Kate Middleton Bottomless the Pirate Bay Hotel Transylvania eagles nfl schedule 2012

Monday, April 8, 2013

Pope invites Romans to join him at city basilica

VATICAN CITY (AP) ? Pope Francis is inviting people to join him in Mass at Rome's main church, St. John in Lateran Basilica.

Pontiffs are also the bishop of Rome, and the gathering Sunday evening reminds Romans of this pastoral role.

Before entering the basilica, Francis attends a ceremony to unveil a plaque renaming St. John in Lateran Square after Pope John Paul II. The late pontiff enthusiastically embraced his role as Rome's bishop, visiting hundreds of city parishes. The vast piazza is a popular venue for free rock concerts and rallies by union leaders and politicians.

Francis issued the invite during his noon appearance and blessing from a window of the Vatican's Apostolic Palace overlooking St. Peter's Square, where tens of thousands of pilgrims and tourists came to cheer him.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/pope-invites-romans-join-him-city-basilica-111300001.html

droid 4 tom brady sister dad shoots daughters laptop brandon jennings the vow review luol deng culkin

Mr. Kerry, how do you ask a woman to be the last to die in Afghanistan?

A familiar question for the US secretary of State following the death of US diplomat Anne?Smedinghoff.

By Ben Arnoldy,?Staff writer / April 7, 2013

Anne Smedinghoff, 25, was killed Saturday, in southern Afghanistan, the first American diplomat to die on the job since last year's attack on the U.S. diplomatic installation in Benghazi, Libya.

Courtesy of Tom Smedinghoff/AP

Enlarge

Once again, history thrust John Kerry today in front of microphones to speak about American youths who are cut down in the waning days of an unpopular war.

Skip to next paragraph Ben Arnoldy

Deputy International Editor

Ben Arnoldy is the Deputy International Editor at The Christian Science Monitor. He has served as the Monitor's bureau chief in India and Northern California.?

Recent posts

' + google_ads[0].line2 + '
' + google_ads[0].line3 + '

'; } else if (google_ads.length > 1) { ad_unit += ''; } } document.getElementById("ad_unit").innerHTML += ad_unit; google_adnum += google_ads.length; return; } var google_adnum = 0; google_ad_client = "pub-6743622525202572"; google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '1'; google_feedback = "on"; google_ad_type = "text"; google_adtest = "on"; google_image_size = '230x105'; google_skip = '0'; // -->

Mr. Kerry, now US secretary of State, urged Americans to ?forge on? against terrorism in the wake of yesterday?s killing of Anne Smedinghoff, a 25-year-old US diplomat serving in Afghanistan. In 1971, a younger Kerry challenged Congress to stop elongating a fruitless war. He asked, ?How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam??

Kerry?s famous question, posed?in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,?came on behalf of fellow soldiers he had recently served with in Vietnam. Today?s remarks also came from a personal place: He had just met Ms. Smedinghoff when she assisted him on his visit to Afghanistan two weeks ago.

An explosion killed the Chicago native while on a mission to deliver textbooks to students in a wartorn part of southeastern Afghanistan. ?Three US soldiers, a civilian Defense Department employee, and an Afghan doctor also died in the attack, which may have been aimed at the governor of the province. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, according to the Associated Press. ?

Kerry, speaking in Turkey, described Anne as ?a selfless, idealistic young woman who woke up yesterday morning and set out to bring textbooks to schoolchildren, to bring them knowledge, children she had never met, to help them to be able to build a future.?

Source: http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/hvebNkYSkys/Mr.-Kerry-how-do-you-ask-a-woman-to-be-the-last-to-die-in-Afghanistan

aaron rodgers Joe Webb Fiesta Bowl Jeanie Buss NFL playoff schedule 2013 Bronson Pelletier andy reid

All about immigration: Green cards? Citizenship?

WASHINGTON (AP) ? This may be the year Congress decides what to do about the millions of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. And this may be the week when a bipartisan group of senators makes public details of the overhaul plan it has been negotiating for months.

But what will that be? Why now? And who are all these immigrants, once you get past the big round numbers?

A big dose of facts, figures and other information to help understand the current debate over immigration:

___

WHY NOW?

Major problems with U.S. immigration have been around for decades.

President George W. Bush tried to change the system and failed. President Barack Obama promised to overhaul it in his first term but never did.

In his second term, he's making immigration a priority, and Republicans also appear ready to deal.

Why the new commitment?

Obama won 71 percent of Hispanic voters in his 2012 re-election campaign, and he owes them. Last year's election also sent a loud message to Republicans that they can't ignore this pivotal voting bloc.

It's been the kind of breathtaking turnaround you rarely see in politics. Plus, there's growing pressure from business leaders, who want to make it easier for the U.S. to attract highly educated immigrants and to legally bring in more lower-skilled workers such as farm laborers.

___

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Talk about "comprehensive immigration reform" generally centers on four main questions:

?What to do about the 11 million-plus immigrants who live in the U.S. without legal permission.

?How to tighten border security.

?How to keep businesses from employing people who are in the U.S. illegally.

?How to improve the legal immigration system, now so convoluted that the adjective "Byzantine" pops up all too frequently.

___

WHAT'S THE GANG OF EIGHT?

A group of four Democrats and four Republicans in the Senate, taking the lead in trying to craft legislation that would address all four questions.

Obama is preparing his own plan as a backup in case congressional talks fail. There's also a bipartisan House group working on draft legislation, but House Republican leaders may leave it to the Senate to make the first move.

___

COMING TO AMERICA

A record 40.4 million immigrants live in the U.S., representing 13 percent of the population. More than 18 million are naturalized citizens, 11 million are legal permanent or temporary residents, and more than 11 million are in the country without legal permission, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a private research organization.

Those in the U.S. illegally made up about 3.7 percent of the U.S. population in 2010. While overall immigration has steadily grown, the number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally peaked at 12 million in 2007.

___

WE'RE NO. 1

The U.S. is the leading destination for immigrants. Russia's second, with 12.3 million, according to Pew.

___

WHERE FROM?

Twenty-nine percent of the foreign-born in the U.S., or about 11.7 million people, came from Mexico. About 25 percent came from South and East Asia, 9 percent from the Caribbean, 8 percent from Central America, 7 percent South America, 4 percent the Middle East and the rest from elsewhere.

The figures are more lopsided for immigrants living here illegally: An estimated 58 percent are from Mexico. The next closest figure is 6 percent from El Salvador, says the government.

___

WHERE TO?

California has the largest share of the U.S. immigrant population, 27 percent, followed by New York, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Hawaii and Texas, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a private group focused on global immigration issues.

California has the largest share of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, at 25 percent, followed by Texas with 16 percent. Florida and New York each has 6 percent, and Georgia has 5 percent, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

___

GETTING IN

Here's one way to think about the ways immigrants arrive in the U.S: Some come in the front door, others the side door and still others the back door, as laid out in a report from the private Population Reference Bureau.

?Arriving through the front door: people legally sponsored by their families or employers. Also refugees and asylum-seekers, and immigrants who win visas in an annual "diversity" lottery.

?Side door: legal temporary arrivals, including those who get visas to visit, work or study. There are dozens of types of nonimmigrant visas, available to people ranging from business visitors to foreign athletes and entertainers. Visitors from dozens of countries don't even need visas.

?Back door: Somewhat more than half of those in the U.S. illegally have come in the back door, evading border controls, Pew estimates. The rest legally entered, but didn't leave when they were supposed to or otherwise violated terms of their visas.

___

HOW DO WE KNOW?

It's widely accepted that there are more than 11 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

But how do we know that?

Those who are living here without permission typically aren't eager to volunteer that information. Number-crunchers dig into census data and other government surveys, make some educated assumptions, adjust for people who may be left out, mix in population information from Mexico and tend to arrive at similar figures.

The Department of Homeland Security estimates there were 11.5 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally in January 2011. Pew puts the number at 11.1 million as of March 2011.

Demographers use what's called the "residual" method to get their tally. They take estimates of the legal foreign-born population and subtract that number from the total foreign-born population. The remainder represents those who are living in the country without legal permission.

___

IS IT A CRIME?

Simply being in the United States in violation of immigration laws isn't, by itself, a crime; it's a civil violation.

Entering the country without permission is a misdemeanor criminal offense. Re-entering the country without authorization after being formally removed can be felony.

Pew estimates that a little less than half of immigrants who lack legal permission to live in the U.S. didn't enter the country illegally. They overstayed their visas, worked without authorization, dropped out of school or otherwise violated the conditions of their visas.

___

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

There are varying and strong opinions about how best to refer to the 11 million-plus people who are in the U.S. without legal permission.

Illegal immigrants?

Undocumented workers?

Unauthorized population?

Illegal aliens?

The last has generally fallen out of favor. Some immigrant advocates are pressing a "Drop the I-Word" campaign, arguing that it is dehumanizing to refer to people as "illegal."

"Undocumented worker" often isn't accurate because many aren't workers, and some have documents from other countries. Homeland Security reports refer to "unauthorized immigrants," but the agency also reports statistics on "aliens apprehended."

___

DEFINITIONS, PLEASE:

?Legal permanent residents (LPRs): people who have permission to live in the U.S. permanently but aren't citizens. They're also known as "green card" holders. Most of them can apply for citizenship within five years of getting green cards. In 2011, 1.06 million people got the cards.

?Refugees and asylees: people who come to the U.S. to avoid persecution in their home countries. What's the difference between the two terms? Refugees are people who apply for protective status before they get to the U.S. Asylees are people who apply upon arrival in the U.S. or later.

?Naturalization: The process by which immigrants become U.S. citizens.

___

GOING GREEN

Is there an actual green card? Indeed there is.

It's the Permanent Resident Card issued to people who are authorized to live and work in the U.S. on a permanent basis. In 2010, the government redesigned them to add new security features ? and make them green again.

The cards had been a variety of colors over the years. New green cards are good for 10 years for lawful permanent residents and two years for conditional residents.

___

PATH TO CITIZENSHIP

There's a lot of talk about creating a "path to citizenship" for immigrants who are in the U.S. without legal status. But there's no consensus on what the route should be, and some conservatives reject the idea outright, seeing it as tantamount to amnesty.

There is a vigorous debate over what conditions immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally should have to satisfy to get citizenship ? paying taxes or fees, passing background checks, etc.

Some Republicans want to first see improvements in border security and in tracking whether legal immigrants leave the country when required. Obama doesn't support linking the path to citizenship with border security.

Some conservatives want to grant immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally some sort of legal status that stops short of citizenship. Some 43 percent of Americans think those who are here illegally should be eligible for citizenship, one-quarter think they should only be allowed to apply for legal residency, and about the same share think they should not be allowed to stay legally at all, according to a Pew Research Center survey released in March.

___

A NEW ACRONYM

Move over LPRs; make way for LPIs.

The president's draft immigration proposal would create a "Lawful Prospective Immigrant" visa. It would allow those who are here illegally to become legal permanent residents within eight years if they met certain requirements such as a criminal background check. They could later be eligible to become U.S. citizens.

___

THE A-WORD

Nothing stirs up a hornet's nest like talk of amnesty for immigrants who are in the country illegally, although there's a lot of disagreement over how to define the term.

A 2007 effort to overhaul the immigration system, led by Bush, failed in part because Republicans were dismayed that it included a process to give otherwise law-abiding immigrants who were in the country illegally a chance to become citizens. Critics complained that would be offering amnesty.

All sides know it's not practical to talk about sending 11 million-plus people back to their countries of origin. So one big challenge this time is finding an acceptable way to resolve the status of those who are in the country illegally.

___

GETTING A REPRIEVE

While the larger immigration debate goes on, the government already is offering as many as 1.76 million immigrants who are in the country illegally a way to avoid deportation, at least for now.

Obama announced a program in June that puts off deportation for many people brought here as children. Applicants for the reprieve must have arrived before they turned 16, be younger than 31 now, be high school graduates or in school, or have served in the military. They can't have a serious criminal record or pose a threat to public safety or national security.

Applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are averaging 3,300 a day. By mid-March, nearly 454,000 people had applied and more than 245,000 had been approved, with most of the rest still under consideration.

In some ways, the program closely tracks the failed DREAM Act, which would have given many young illegal immigrants a path to legal status. Obama's program doesn't give them legal status but it at least protects them from deportation for two years.

___

HISTORY: DOING THE WAVE

The U.S. is in its fourth and largest immigration wave.

First came the Colonial era, then an 1820-1870 influx of newcomers mostly from Northern and Western Europe. Most were Germans and Irish, but the gold rush and jobs on the transcontinental railroad also attracted Chinese immigrants.

In the 1870s, immigration declined due to economic problems and restrictive legislation.

The third wave, between 1881 and 1920, brought more than 23 million people to the U.S., mostly from Southern and Eastern Europe, aided by cheaper trans-Atlantic travel and lured by employers seeking workers.

Then came the Great Depression and more restrictive immigration laws, and immigration went into decline for decades.

The fourth wave, still underway, began in 1965 with the end of immigration limits based on nationality. Foreign-born people made up 1 in 20 residents of the U.S. in 1960; today, the figure is about 1 in 8.

___

HISTORY: HERE A LAW, THERE A LAW

Until the late 1800s, immigration was largely a free for all. Then came country-by-country limits. Since then, big changes in U.S. immigration law have helped produce big shifts in migration patterns.

Among the more notable laws:

?1965 Immigration and Nationality Act: Abolished country-by-country limits, established a new system that determined immigration preference based on family relationships and needed skills, and expanded the categories of family members who could enter without numerical limits.

?1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act: Legalized about 2.7 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, 84 percent of them from Mexico and Central America.

?1990 Immigration Act: Increased worldwide immigration limit to a "flexible cap" of 675,000 a year. The number can go higher in some years if there are unused visas available from the previous year.

?1996 Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Expanded possible reasons for deporting people or ruling them ineligible to enter the U.S., expedited removal procedures, gave state and local police power to enforce immigration laws.

?Post-2001: In 2001, talk percolated about a new immigration plan to deal with unauthorized immigrants, guest workers and violence along the Mexican border. But the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks of 2001 put an end to that, amid growing unease over illegal immigration.

___

ABOUT LAST TIME. ...

The last big immigration legalization plan, in 1986, took six years to get done.

The law, signed by President Ronald Reagan, had three main components: making it illegal to hire unauthorized workers, improving border enforcement and providing for the legalization of a big chunk of the estimated 3 million to 5 million immigrants then in the country illegally.

The results were disappointing on two central fronts: The hiring crackdown largely failed because there was no good way to verify eligibility to work, and it took a decade to improve border security. As a result, illegal immigration continued to grow, fueled by the strong U.S. economy.

What did work as intended: Close to 3 million immigrants living in the U.S. without permission received legal status. By 2009, about 40 percent of them had been naturalized, according to Homeland Security.

___

LATINOS RISING

Census figures show that between 1960 and 2010, immigration from Europe declined while the numbers coming from Latin America and Asia took off. As the immigrants' points of origin changed, so did their destinations. Concentrations shifted from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and West.

A few Census Bureau snapshots:

?In 1960, there were fewer than 1 million people in the U.S. who were born in Latin America. By 2010, there were 21.2 million.

?In 1960, 75 percent of foreigners in the U.S. came from Europe. By 2010, 80 percent came from Latin America and Asia.

?In 1960: 47 percent of the foreign-born lived in the Northeast and 10 percent in the South. By 2010, 22 percent lived in the Northeast and 32 percent in the South.

___

THE FENCE

The fence between the U.S. and Mexico runs off and on for 651 miles along the 1,954-mile border. Most of it has been built since 2005. At some points, it's an 18-foot-high steel mesh structure topped with razor wire. At others, it's a rusting, 8-foot-high thing, made of Army surplus landing mats from the Vietnam War.

The fencing is one of the more visible manifestations of a massive effort over the past two decades to improve border security. The results of that effort are dramatic. Those images of crowds of immigrants sprinting across the border illegally while agents scramble to nab a few are largely a thing of the past.

Two decades ago, fewer than 4,000 Border Patrol agents worked along the Southwest border. Today there are 18,500.

Plummeting apprehension statistics are one measure of change: 357,000 last year, compared with 1.6 million in 2000. The numbers are down in part because fewer are trying to make it across.

The border isn't sealed but it is certainly more secure.

___

WHO'S HANGING AROUND

With tighter border security and years of economic difficulty in the U.S., it turns out that most of the immigrants who are in the U.S. without permission have been there for a while. Just 14 percent have arrived since the start of 2005, according to Homeland Security estimates. In contrast, 29 percent came during the previous five years.

At the peak in 2000, about 770,000 immigrants arrived annually from Mexico, most of them entering the country illegally. By 2010, the pace had dropped to about 140,000, most of them arriving as legal immigrants, according to Pew.

___

WHO'S LEAVING?

Mexicans, mostly. Since 1986, more than 4 million noncitizens have been deported. Deportations have expanded in the Obama administration, reaching 410,000 in 2012 from 30,000 in 1990. Most of those deported ? 75 percent ? are sent back to Mexico. Nearly half of those removed had prior criminal convictions. So far, the Obama administration has deported more than 1.6 million people.

___

TO NATURALIZE OR NOT

Lots of U.S. immigrants who are eligible to become naturalized citizens don't bother. As of 2010, about two-thirds of eligible immigrants had applied for citizenship, according to the Migration Policy Institute. That lags behind the rate in other English-speaking countries such as Australia and Canada, which do more to promote naturalization.

___

WHY BOTHER?

What's so great about citizenship?

Naturalization offers all sorts of rights and benefits, including the right to vote and run for office. Naturalized citizens are protected from losing their residency rights and being deported if they get in legal trouble. They can bring family members into the U.S. more quickly.

Certain government jobs and licensed professions require citizenship. Citizenship also symbolizes full membership in U.S. society.

In 2010, there was a 67 percent earnings gap between naturalized citizens and noncitizen immigrants, according to a report from the Migration Policy Institute. Even after stripping out differences in education, language skills and work experience, naturalized citizens earned at least 5 percent more.

___

SKIPPING IT

Nearly two-thirds of the 5.4 million legal immigrants from Mexico who are eligible to become U.S. citizens haven't done so, according to a Pew study released in February. Their rate of naturalization is half that of legal immigrants from all other countries combined. The barriers to naturalization cited by Mexican nonapplicants include the need to learn English, the difficulty of the citizenship exam and the $680 application fee.

___

WORKERS

How do immigrants who are in the U.S. without permission fit into the nation's jobs picture?

In 2010, about 8 million were working in the U.S. or trying to get work. They made up about 5 percent of the labor force, according to Pew. Among U.S. farm workers, about half are believed to be in the country illegally, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Business groups want a system to legally bring in both more highly skilled workers and more lower-skilled workers such as agricultural laborers. The idea is to hire more when Americans aren't available to fill jobs. This has been a sticking point in past attempts at immigration overhaul. Labor groups want any such revamped system to provide worker protections and guard against displacing American workers. Current temporary worker programs are cumbersome and outdated.

___

EMPLOYERS

Current law requires employers to have their workers fill out a form that declares them authorized to work in the U.S. Then the employer needs to verify that the worker's identifying documents look real. But the law allows lots of different documents, and many of them are easy to counterfeit.

The government has developed a mostly voluntary employment verification system called E-Verify, which has gradually gotten better. But so far just 10 percent of employers are using it, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The system is now required in varying degrees by 19 states.

___

FAMILIES VS. JOBS

A big question in the immigration debate centers on how much priority to give to the family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

Under current law, the U.S. awards a much larger proportion of green cards to family members than to foreigners with job prospects here. About two-thirds of permanent legal immigration to the U.S. is family-based, compared with about 15 percent that is employment-based, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The rest is largely humanitarian.

Some policymakers think employment-based immigration should be boosted to help the economy. Advocates for families want to make sure any such action doesn't come at the expense of people seeking to join relatives in the U.S.

___

WHO CARES?

For all the attention being devoted to immigration right now, it's not the top priority for most people, even for most Hispanics. It ranked 17th on a list of policy priorities in a recent Pew Research Center poll. Among Hispanics, one-third said immigration was an extremely important issue to them, behind such issues as the economy and jobs, education and health care.

___

WHAT TO DO?

The public is divided on what should be done to fix immigration problems. In a recent Pew survey, 28 percent said the priority should be tighter restrictions on immigration, 27 percent said creating a path to citizenship, and 42 percent thought both approaches should get equal priority.

___

A VIEW FROM THE SOUTH

Is life actually better in the U.S.? A little more than half of Mexican adults think so, according to a 2012 Pew Global Attitudes poll. Thirty-eight percent said they'd move to the U.S. if they had the chance. Nineteen percent said they'd come even without authorization.

___

Sources: Pew Hispanic Center, Migration Policy Institute, Department of Homeland Security, Census Bureau, Government Accountability Office, Population Reference Bureau, Encyclopedia of Immigration.

___

Associated Press writers Alicia Caldwell and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

___

Follow Nancy Benac on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/nbenac

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/immigration-green-cards-citizenship-121159749.html

chardon high school shooting mark martin cleveland news daytona race the cutting edge fox 8 news indy 500

Sunday, April 7, 2013

AP source: US delays missile test as tensions rise (The Arizona Republic)

Share With Friends: Share on FacebookTweet ThisPost to Google-BuzzSend on GmailPost to Linked-InSubscribe to This Feed | Rss To Twitter | Politics - Top Stories Stories, RSS and RSS Feed via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/297201115?client_source=feed&format=rss

the hobbit mick jagger Newton Shooting Newtown Shooting Gangnam Style Ryan Lanza Sandy Hook

Embassies staying put in North Korea despite tension

By Jane Chung

SEOUL (Reuters) - Staff at embassies in North Korea appeared to be remaining in place on Saturday despite an appeal by authorities in Pyongyang for diplomats to consider leaving because of heightened tension after weeks of bellicose exchanges.

North Korean authorities told diplomatic missions they could not guarantee their safety from next Wednesday - after declaring that conflict was inevitable amid joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises due to last until the end of the month.

Whatever the atmosphere in Pyongyang, the rain-soaked South Korean capital, Seoul, was calm. Traffic moved normally through the city center, busy with Saturday shoppers.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted a government official as saying diplomats were disregarding the suggestion they might leave the country.

"We don't believe there's any foreign mission about to leave Pyongyang," the unidentified official was quoted as saying. "Most foreign governments view the North Korean message as a way of ratcheting up tension on the Korean peninsula."

North Korea has been angry since new U.N. sanctions were imposed following its third nuclear weapons test in February. Its rage has apparently been compounded by joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises that began on March 1.

China's Xinhua news agency on Friday had quoted the North's Foreign Ministry as saying the issue was no longer whether but when a war would break out.

Most countries saw the appeal to the missions as little more than strident rhetoric after weeks of threatening to launch a nuclear strike on the United States and declarations of war against the South.

But Russia said it was "seriously studying" the request.

A South Korean government official expressed bewilderment.

"It's hard to define what is its real intention," said the official, who asked not to be identified. "But it might have intensified these threats to strengthen the regime internally or to respond to the international community."

The United Nations said its humanitarian workers remained active across North Korea. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, however, remained "deeply concerned" about tensions, heightened since the imposition of U.N. sanctions against the North for its third nuclear arms test in February.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi repeated Beijing's calls for dialogue to resolve the tensions in a phone call with Ban.

"We oppose provocative words and actions from any party in the region and do not allow troublemaking on China's doorstep," a statement on the ministry's website said, citing Wang.

The appeal to diplomats followed news reports in the South that North Korea, under its 30-year-old leader Kim Jong-un, had moved two medium-range missiles to a location on its east coast. That prompted the White House to say that Washington would "not be surprised" if the North staged another missile test.

Kim Jong-un is the third member of his dynasty to rule North Korea. He took over in December 2011 after the death of his father, Kim Jong-il, who staged confrontations with South Korea and the United States throughout his 17-year rule.

North Korea has always condemned the exercises held by U.S. forces and their South Korean allies. But its comments have been especially vitriolic this year as the United States dispatched B-2 bombers from its home bases to stage mock runs.

"MADCAP NUCLEAR WAR"

North Korea's government daily newspaper said tension remained high because the United States was "waging madcap nuclear war maneuvers".

"This is aimed at igniting a nuclear war against it through a pre-emptive strike," the Minju Joson said in a commentary. "The prevailing situation proves that a new war, a nuclear war, is imminent on the peninsula."

A television documentary broadcast on Friday quoted North Korean leader Kim as saying, during a provincial tour last month, that the country needed to "absolutely guarantee the quality of our artillery and shells to ensure a rapid pre-emptive attack on our enemies".

But some commentators examining the outcome of meetings in Pyongyang last week - of the ruling Workers' Party and of the rubber-stamp legislature - concluded that Kim and his leadership were more concerned with economic than military issues.

Internet site 38 North, which specializes in North Korean affairs, cited the reappointment of reformer Pak Pong Ju as prime minister, the limited titles given to top military and security officials and the naming of a woman to a senior party post.

"These personnel appointments make a great deal of sense in the context of Pyongyang's declarations ... that its economic policy will be modified by introducing systemic reforms while also continuing the development of nuclear weapons," 38 North commentator Michael Madden wrote.

"(They) appear to be important steps in moving key economic development products and production away from the control of the military to the party and government."

North Korea has not shut down one symbol of joint cooperation, the Kaesong industrial zone just inside its border. But last week it prevented South Koreans from entering the complex and about 100 of them who have since remained were due to return home on Saturday, leaving a further 500 there.

The barrage of North Korean threats has created jitters in South Korea's financial markets.

Shares slid on Friday, but analysts said much of the decline was linked to the Bank of Japan's monetary easing policies and one analyst said further major falls were unlikely.

"In a sense, for now the yen is of greater concern than the North Korea risk," said Ko Seunghee, a market analyst at SK Securities. "There is a sense that the KOSPI (index) will not fall sharply or drop below the 1,900 level unless big news about North Korea breaks out."

(Additional reporting by Michael Martina in Beijing, Writing by Ron Popeski; Editing by Robert Birsel and Stephen Powell)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-asks-embassies-consider-moving-diplomats-022658803--business.html

sean payton saints bounty program toulouse france ny jets ny jets the situation tim tebow jets