Speech

Topic: U.S. Senate group considers a large reduction in family visas as part of a new immigration deal

Audience: College University Graduates

            America, the land of the free. The home of the brave. People travel from all parts of the world to come here and seek the American Dream. But what is their dream really all about? Is is about wealth and prosperity? About opportunity? About family freedom? What if I tell you it's about all of those things, and that one will not work without the other.  Today in the White House senators are negotiating a bill that would make it difficult for relatives of U.S. citizens to immigrate to this country. Instead of having the sons and daughters of our citizens come to this country, our congressman would prefer to limit this privilege to high-skilled workers. Currently, about 65 percent of legal immigrants are admitted into this country through the family visa program, and another 14 percent are admitted for employment reasons. Now senators want to basically reverse those numbers. While most agree that only a limited number of people should be allowed into this country each year, the question is being raised as to who those people should be. As it stands, spouses and minor children of citizens are given top priority, and that will remain. However, unmarried children older than 21 and married adult children and siblings have been the next in line for consideration. Now congress wants to get rid of this group all together and trade family members in for what they call “beneficial workers.” Although those family members could still apply for entry, they would need to have high-tech skill in order to qualify and be approved for a green card. That adds up to approximately 90,000 visas denied each year.

            These policies have been in place for generations. However, now the family visa program is being overshadowed by the larger issue of citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country. Changes to the family visa program may have serious ramifications for any decision reached by congress regarding immigration. The family visa  program has a waiting list of around 4.3 million people. That's 4.3 million family members of legal U.S. citizens, awaiting their entry into this country. Today I tell you that our politicians want to stop these families from coming together. Today I tell you that our politicians want to do away with family migration and begin what they are calling an “economic-based immigration system.” Is this bill going to pass? Well it could.

            Republicans have submitted the bill for the admittance of only high-skilled workers, while democrats have been in favor of giving priority entrance to family members of legal citizens already in this country. Democrats understand that extended family creates support networks that keep families together and help them excel. But recently, democrats have decided that they need to compromise on family visas in order to convince republicans to be flexible on illegal immigration issues. Even more, the Obama administration has expressed support for the group’s general principles, but have not officially backed the bill as of yet. So, yes this bill could pass. With everyone worried about what to do about illegal immigration, legal U.S. citizens with migrating family members are getting pushed to the side. So what are we to do? The first thing we must do is spread the word and get people interested in the issue. From there we need letters; use the searchable online congressional directory to find your senators' and representative's phone numbers. You can also call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard and ask for their office. If you like you can go to Washington and picket...Just do something. If we don't do anything then we will have no right to complain when the big wigs in congress make the decision for us. This is a big issue and one that is being overshadowed. Don't forget about the ones who have already done the work to become legal. Don't we owe them something? Don't we owe them an opportunity at the whole American dream? Who are we to tell them when their dream has been fulfilled. Do we have the right to change the rules, only after they have done the work?

Works Cited

Longley, Robert. “US Government Info: Letters to Congress.” About.com. n.d.     Usgovinfo.about.com. 14 March 2013.

Najamura, D “Senate group considers large reduction in family visas as part of immigration deal.              WP Politics. March 14, 2013. Washingtonpost.com. 14 March 2013.

video

 In this speech, President Obama's message seemed intended to appeal to a domestic audience as much as to the world leaders at the Genreal assembly
 spoke at the United Nations General  defended continuing efforts by the U.S. to prevent Iran's nuclear weapon developed. The President went on to say that American wants to solve these problem , on other hand Iran's government dosnt respond as America does.

Editorial: Iran still holding out during talks about its nuclear program

Erlanger, Steven. “As Negotiators Ease Demands on Iran, More Nuclear Talks Are Set.” The New York Times, Middle East. Feb 27, 2013.

Editorial: Iran still holding out during talks about its nuclear program

            There have been talks over the the past two days between the Iranian government and the P5+1 group – Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the US – regarding Iran's uranium enrichment program. However, the negotiations have consistently ended with no positive response from Tehran, pushing the six up against a wall with no options except to offer a sweeter deal in order to try and persuade Iran to not go further with its uranium enrichment program.

            While no proof has been found that Iran is definitely enriching their uranium for weapons purposes, the Iranian government has been nothing less than evasive about its acceptance of a sanction relief in return for some effort on their behalf that enrichment procedures will cease.

The UN has again confirmed that Iran's plans of high level uranium enrichment are still going forward at its plant in Natanz, a statement that Tehran still denies. As the West becomes more fearful of the obvious, the big six have caved and dropped their demands that Iran shut down its enrichment plant at Fordo, which happens to be built deep in the mountains.

            As a result of Iran's stalemate stance, the six have now offered Iran the option to simply “suspend” their work there and agree to measures that would make it difficult to make a bomb quickly,  if they ever indeed decided to do so. Even more the six agreed to allowing Iran to keep a portion of the already highly enriched uranium that could easily be turned into bomb-grade material. So this is what happens when you don't cave in, you essentially get your way.

            Last week, the Iran Atomic Energy Organization announced that they had discovered  large amounts of raw uranium deposits and confirmed 16 more sites which Iran continuously claims to be for fuel. If Iran decides to make weapons of mass destruction, this arrangement could leave them with everything they need to do so. Have they not learned anything from 9/11?

Originally, the whole purpose of meeting with Iran was to get the country to comply with  Security Council resolutions and put a halt to all enrichment until it could adequately convince the International Atomic Energy Agency that it indeed had no weapons program and no hidden sites where enrichment was taking place. This idea has been completely blown out of the water and the six are now almost at a state of begging Iran to cease military action.

            The offer to lift the sanctions, which have been claimed to cost Iran about 8 percent of its gross domestic product, has obviously done little to motivate Tehran to stop enrichment procedures. With their presidential elections coming in June, Iran has been in no mood to back down and look weak in these negotiations. According to the six they were forced to come up with a plan that would allow the Iranian government to save face.

            However, the meeting was simply to explain the new deal to the Iranians and the plan still has not been accepted. It could easily happen that when they convene again in April Iran comes back at the council with a counter proposal that no one is willing to accept. So far the sanctions have not been an incentive, the enrichment process has been undoubtedly confirmed, the West has made allowances for Iran to keep a percentage of their “bomb-making” uranium, so at this point what more can be done?

            Although the negotiations are not over yet it does not look good on the horizon. With the six caving daily to meet the desires of the Iranian government, what does that say about their position in the matter. There is still time for diplomacy, with the latest offer made to Iran the situation is not yet fully out of control.  Let's just hope the offer is accepted so all involved can finally put this issue to rest and go home.

           

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Hend Alhusain

Prof. : Steven Wexler

ENG 306

03 Marcch 2013

Herb, Jeremy. “US and Iran inch closer to military conflict.” The Hill. 16 Jan. 2012. thehill.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Military Conflict Between United States and Iran is Higher Than Ever, Says Military Analyst

Washington, D.C.- March  1, 2013 -“The probability of armed conflict between the United States and Iran is higher now than at any point since 1988, and the risk will only increase over the coming year,” said Matthew Kroenig, of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Tensions continue to increase over Iran's nuclear developments and hostile approach to negotiations. Multiple attempts have been made by the United States to discuss the matter during peaceful interaction.

The 2012 presidential election was focused on domestic issues with and eye on the economy. However, Iran's position contunuously threatened that agenda.

“Iran can change the subject,” said Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. If Iran decides to go forth with the execution of a former U.S. Marine it has sentenced to death, this could threaten the foreign-policy record President Obama has built during his` presidency.

Tensions between Iran and the West heated up tremendously last year when Iran threatened to close down the Strait of Hormuz. This decision came as a direct response to the idea of economic sanctions from the United States and European Union.

The United States assured that it would interfere with any attempts to close the strait, which is an extremely vital passageway in the Persian Gulf. This action prompted Iran to make all attempts to force the U.S. out of the Gulf.

The relations between the United States and Iran were pushed even further after Iran sentenced Marine Amir Hekmati to death for allegedly spying for the CIA. The United States denied the allegations saying they were unfounded.

At the root of the issues with Iran is its decision to continue its nuclear program, which the U.S. clearly feels is an attempt at building nuclear weapons, and Iran claims is to produce energy.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has accused the United States and Israel of being behind the killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist who was assassinated after a motorcyclist placed a bomb under his car. The U.S. has denied all involvement.

“Clearly there are those areas that for us are red lines,”  said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, while speaking to soldiers at Fort Bliss in Texas.

“Number one, we cannot allow them to develop a nuclear weapon,” said Panetta. “That’s a red line. Number two, we cannot tolerate Iran blocking the Straits of Hormuz.”

According to reports, the United States has issued a warning to Khamenei to not close the Strait of Hormuz. Since Iran’s economy is deeply  dependent on oil exports, closing the Strait of Hormuz would amount to an economic death sentence.

The U.S. is not going to get into an all out war with Iran unless there is an Israeli attack. However, an attack on Iran is still a heated issue inside Israel. According to Benedetta Berti, a research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, “The idea of going unilaterally is definitely thought of as a last-resort option.”

Contact:
Hend Alhusain
hend.alhusain.831@my.csun.edu

17730 Lassen St, Northridge

California

(+16192434131)