The Cuban Adjustment Act ala Mexico

Posted on February 9, 2015February 9, 2015 by Denise Simon

The Cuban Adjustment Act of 1996 (CAA) provides for a special procedure under which Cuban natives or citizens and their accompanying spouses and children may get a green card (permanent residence). The CAA gives the Attorney General the discretion to grant permanent residence to Cuban natives or citizens applying for a green card if:

They have been present in the United States for at least 1 year
They have been admitted or paroled
They are admissible as immigrants

‎

HAVANA — President Obama’s opening to Cuba has accelerated a surge in Cuban migration to the United States, the latest U.S. statistics show, as many on the island grow worried that America’s long-standing immigration benefits for Cubans are now in jeopardy.

Last month the Coast Guard intercepted 481 Cubans in rickety boats and rafts, a 117 percent increase from December 2013. But the boaters account for only a fraction of those attempting to reach the United States. At the Miami airport and ports of entry along the Mexican border, the number of Cubans who arrived seeking refuge jumped to 8,624 during the last three months of 2014, a 65 percent increase from the previous year.

Many Cubans have heard warnings for years that their unique immigration privileges — which essentially treat anyone from the island who sets foot on U.S. terra firma as a political refugee — would not last forever.

Mexican border now a major entry point for Cuban migrants

Although a homemade raft overloaded with desperate people is the most enduring image of the decades-long migration to the U.S. from Cuba, that is not the way most Cubans without visas now arrive.

Most walk across the Mexican border.

“It is surprising. And it is surprising that we are now seeing those numbers officially reported,” said Jorge Duany, a Florida International University professor who studies migration patterns. During the last three months of 2014, nearly 6,500 Cubans arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. That figure is up from 4,328 from the same period the previous year, an increase of 50 percent.

Sombrero Beach, in Marathon, Florida

The number of Cubans without visas processed through the agency’s Miami field office more than doubled over that same period, rising from 893 to 2,135. Many flew directly to Miami aboard flights from Spain, South America, the Bahamas or the Cayman Islands, using passports from Spain and other third countries.

The 1,900-mile long Southwest border, for years the main entry point for undocumented migrants from Mexico and Central America, was also ground zero for a recent spike in Cuban migrants.

The spike includes arrivals of Cubans by air and sea, and was fueled in part by fears that talks between the Obama Administration and Cuba could result in changes in the preferential treatment undocumented Cuban migrants have enjoyed since 1966.

Rumors that the Adjustment Act — and the 1995 amendment providing for the so-called “wet-foot, dry-foot” policy – was at risk began to sweep the island in the wake of President Obama’s Dec. 17 speech in which he said the U.S. wanted to normalize relations with the Castro government. Existing policies allow Cubans who reach U.S. soil– with or without visas – to stay and within a year apply for permanent residency.

“The primary concern is the possibility of the Cuban Adjustment Act being affected,” said Oscar Rivera, director of the resettlement agency Church World Service in Doral. “That seems to be an issue in Cuba right now. That’s what we’re hearing.”

The surge in Cuban migrants triggered by the announcement may be most evident in the number of Coast Guard interdictions at sea. In December 2014, 331 Cubans in boats and rafts were stopped before they could reach the U.S. All were taken back to Cuba. During the last three months of 2014, 132 Cubans made it to shore in Florida, up from 105 during the same period in 2013, according to Border Patrol figures. Unknown is the number who landed without being detected and did not report to U.S. officials, or who perished at sea. But balseros, or rafters, make up only a fraction of those attempting to reach the U.S. “It is no longer chiefly the heroic individual who floats himself across,” said Duany, director of FIU’s Cuban Research Institute. “Much of the traffic in people now is well-organized by smuggling groups. It is how the coyotes (smugglers) make a living.” Many of those Cubans who enter the U.S. through Mexico begin their journey in Ecuador. In the past six years, more than 100,000 Cubans have left the island for the Andean nation because Ecuador does not require a visa or special permission to visit.

Ramon Saul Sanchez, leader of the anti-Castro group Democracy Movement, said the Cuban government welcomes the flow of its citizens to South America, through Mexico and into Florida because it relieves social pressure on the island.

Once in the U.S., those arrivals then “refresh the source of income” to Cuba by sending money home to relatives on the island, Sanchez said.

Cubans also enter the U.S. with visas issued by the Interest Section in Havana. Current accords call for a minimum of 20,000 visas a year, but Duany said that recently the number of visas issued has averaged 32,000 annually.

Regardless of any changes to the Cuban Adjustment Act, or the lifting of the embargo, Duany predicts migration from Cuba will increase over the next decade. “The economic conditions, the living conditions in Cuba, don’t seem to improve, and the force of family ties remains strong,” he said. “I don’t see any indication that will change.” David Abraham, a University of Miami law professor and expert in Cuban migration, agrees. “Change in Cuba comes slowly,” he said. “What’s driving people to come here doesn’t change. That’s economic opportunity.”

HSBC Web of Corruption Includes Familiar Names

Posted on February 9, 2015February 9, 2015 by Denise Simon

British bank HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA.L) admitted on Sunday failings by its Swiss subsidiary, in response to media reports it helped wealthy customers dodge taxes and conceal millions of dollars of assets.

“We acknowledge and are accountable for past compliance and control failures,” HSBC said on Sunday after news outlets including French newspaper Le Monde and Britain’s The Guardian published allegations about its Swiss private bank.

The Guardian, along with other news outlets, cited documents obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) via Le Monde.

HSBC said that its Swiss arm had not been fully integrated into HSBC after its purchase in 1999, allowing “significantly lower” standards of compliance and due diligence to persist.

The Guardian alleged in its report that the files showed HSBC’s Swiss bank routinely allowed clients to withdraw “bricks” of cash, often in foreign currencies which were of little use in Switzerland, marketed schemes which were likely to enable wealthy clients to avoid European taxes and colluded with some to conceal undeclared accounts from domestic tax authorities.

HSBC said the Swiss private banking industry, long known for its secrecy, operated differently in the past and this may have resulted in HSBC having had “a number of clients that may not have been fully compliant with their applicable tax obligations.”

HSBC’s clients linked to dictators, arms dealers and tax dodgers

Secret documents reveal that global banking giant HSBC profited from doing business with arms dealers who channeled mortar bombs to child soldiers in Africa, bag men for Third World dictators, traffickers in blood diamonds and other international outlaws.

The leaked files, based on the inner workings of HSBC’s Swiss private banking arm, relate to accounts holding more than $100 billion. They provide a rare glimpse inside the super-secret Swiss banking system — one the public has never seen before.

The documents, obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) via the French newspaper Le Monde, show the bank’s dealings with clients engaged in a spectrum of illegal behavior, especially in hiding hundreds of millions of dollars from tax authorities. They also show private records of famed soccer and tennis players, cyclists, rock stars, Hollywood actors, royalty, politicians, corporate executives and old-wealth families.

These disclosures shine a light on the intersection of international crime and legitimate business, and they dramatically expand what’s known about potentially illegal or unethical behavior in recent years at HSBC, one of the world’s largest banks.

How the offshore banking industry shelters money and hides secrets has enormous implications for societies across the globe. Academics conservatively estimate that $7.6 trillion is held in overseas tax havens, costing government treasuries at least $200 billion a year.

In many instances the records do describe questionable behavior, such as bankers advising clients on how to take a range of measures to avoid paying taxes in their home countries — and customers telling bankers that their accounts are not declared to their governments.

Highlights from ICIJ’s investigation:

The reporters found the names of current and former politicians from Britain, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Kenya, Romania, India, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Tunisia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Paraguay, Djibouti, Senegal, the Philippines and Algeria, among others. They found several people on the current U.S. sanctions list, such as Selim Alguadis, a Turkish businessman alleged to have supplied sophisticated electrical goods to Libya’s secret nuclear weapons project, and Gennady Timchenko, a billionaire associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin and one of the main targets of sanctions imposed on Russian individuals and businesses in response to the annexation of Crimea and the crisis in eastern Ukraine.

The files reflect a spectrum of royalty, from King Mohammed VI of Morocco to the Crown prince of Bahrain, Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, to Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, the beloved cousin of Queen Elizabeth II of England, to dozens of members of Saudi Arabia’s ruling family. Many were partial or full beneficial owners of accounts. The role of the King of Morocco was not specified.

Business figures and political donors from the U.S. include the billionaire owner of the Victoria’s Secret lingerie chain, Les Wexner, who in 2012 donated $250,000 to a super PAC supporting former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney; the Israeli diamond-dealing Steinmetz family, and the financier and philanthropist S. Donald Sussman, whose account predated his marriage to Democratic Congresswoman Chellie Pingree of Maine.

A representative for Sussman said the account was not his, adding that he had made a passive investment in a technology venture fund. The representative said it was this fund that had the account, the existence of which he learned for the first time when questioned by ICIJ. “Mr. Sussman’s investments were minority interests,” the spokesman said, “and he had no involvement in the funds’ management, investment decisions, or other activities.”

An analysis of the files by ICIJ shows that many individuals linked to accounts took extra precautions to protect their identities, even though HSBC staff repeatedly assured customers they were already bound by tight Swiss banking secrecy.

Clinton Foundation Donors

The files show Richard Caring, a major donor to British politics, transferring $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit set up by the former U.S. President Bill Clinton with the stated mission to “strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.”

The donation to the Clinton Foundation was requested in December 2005. The previous month, Caring funded a champagne and caviar extravaganza at Catherine the Great’s Winter Palace in St Petersburg, Russia, flying in 450 guests to be entertained by Sir Elton John and Tina Turner and addressed by Bill Clinton. The event raised more than £11 million for a children’s charity.

A number of other prominent donors to the Clinton Foundation appear in the files, including the Canadian businessman Frank Giustra and German motor racing superstar Michael Schumacher, a seven-time Formula One champion. A representative of Schumacher, who is listed as a beneficial owner of an account closed in 2002, told ICIJ that he is a long-term resident of Switzerland.

A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation told The Guardian it “has strong donor integrity and transparency practices that go well beyond what is required of U.S. charities, including the full disclosure of all of our donors.”

Links to Al Qaeda?

HSBC’s clients’ links to Al Qaeda were first publicly raised in the July 2012 U.S. Senate report, which cited an alleged internal Al Qaeda list of financial benefactors. The Senate report said the list came to light after a search of the Bosnian offices of the Benevolence International Foundation, a Saudi-based nonprofit organization that the U.S. Treasury Department has designated as a terrorist organization.

Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, referred to the handwritten list of the 20 names as the “Golden Chain.”

From the moment the names on the Golden Chain list were made public in news reports in the spring of 2003, the Senate subcommittee stated that HSBC should have been “on notice” and aware these powerful business figures were high risk clients.

Though the significance of the Golden Chain list has since been questioned, the ICIJ found what appear to be three Golden Chain names with HSBC Swiss accounts that existed after that date.

Read the full story on ICIJ.org and explore the data.

Merkel, Obama and Putin

Posted on February 9, 2015February 9, 2015 by Denise Simon

Exactly why is Angela Merkel of German visiting the White House today? Putin is in Cairo today expanding his influence or is he? There is a real split on arming Ukraine, on a military solution or giving diplomacy more time with regard to getting Putin out of Ukraine. There have been numerous cease-fire agreements, each have collapsed, such that 5400 people in Ukraine are dead. What about Greece? There is also the question of what Putin is doing with Cyprus.

Cyprus has denied Russian media reports that it is ready to lease two military bases to Russia.

“There is no question of Russian air or naval military bases on the soil of Cyprus,” said Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides.

Earlier, Russian government newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta said Cyprus President Nicos Anastasiades would make the offer on an official visit to Moscow on 25 February.

Cyprus is in the EU but not in Nato.

The leasing deal would concern an air base near Paphos and a naval base at Limassol, according to Rossiiskaya Gazeta. Russia can already use the bases temporarily.

But Mr Kasoulides dismissed the leasing claim, saying “there has never been any request from Russia about this”, the Cyprus News Agency CNA reported.

He said President Anastasiades was referring to “the renewal of a military co-operation agreement with Russia consisting of maintenance of military equipment sold to Cyprus years ago, as well as the purchase of spare parts according to existing contracts”.

He added that “as regards the offering of facilities, these are of a purely non-military humanitarian nature, such as the evacuation of Russian civilians from the Middle East if the need arises”.

Russian warships can already use the Limassol base for refuelling and the Andreas Papandreou air base for humanitarian missions.

Commander of US Army in Europe Sees Russia Mobilizing for War ‘I believe the Russians are mobilizing right now for a war that they think is going to happen in five or six years —not that they’re going to start a war in five or six years, but I think they are anticipating that things are going to happen, and that they will be in a war of some sort, of some scale, with somebody within the next five or six years.”

So says Lt. Gen. Frederick “Ben” Hodges, commander of U.S. Army Europe….

“Strong Europe!” reads a sign on one of the walls. Next to it is the U.S. Army Europe insignia, a burning sword set against a blue shield. The two signs represent the strategic framework the three-star general has introduced—building on America’s decades-long role on the Continent—since taking command last year of the 30,000 or so U.S. soldiers stationed in Europe.

The U.S. military presence in Europe is more vital at this moment than it has been in many years. American engagement is essential if the West is to deter a revanchist Russia that has set out to “redraw the boundaries of Europe,” Gen. Hodges says with a native Floridian’s drawl….

The Russians have “got some forces in Transnistria,” he says of the state that broke away from Moldova in the 1990s. “They’ve got forces in Georgia. And I think they view China as their existential threat, so they’ve got a lot of capacity out there.” The Russian military is thus already somewhat stretched, and Moscow had to carve out from existing units the battalion task groups currently arrayed near eastern Ukraine. Yet “they are clearly on a path to develop, to increase, their capacity,” Gen. Hodges says. Add to this expansion that “they’ve got very good equipment, extremely good communications equipment, their [electronic-warfare] capability, T-80 tanks.” How long will it take for Russia to reach its desired military strength? “I think within another two or three years they will have that capacity,” he says….

Then there is the Kremlin’s sheer aggressiveness, not least on the nuclear front. The Pentagon last year announced that it is removing missiles from 50 of America’s underground silos, converting B-52 long-range bombers to conventional use and disabling 56 submarine-based nuclear-launch tubes—all well ahead of the 2018 New Start treaty deadline. Moscow, by contrast, has been simulating nuclear strikes on Western capitals as part of annual exercises.

Gen. Hodges won’t comment on the U.S. strategic-force posture in Europe other than to say he is “confident in that process.” But he adds that the fact that the Russians rehearse nuclear-strike scenarios “shows that they’re not worried about conveying a stark message like that. You know, frankly, you hear this often from many people in the West, ‘Oh, we don’t want to provoke the Russians.’ I think concern about provoking the Russians is probably misplaced. You can’t provoke them. They’re already on a path to do what they want to do….

“I’ve never been bashful about telling allies, ‘Hey, you have a responsibility here, too. You all agreed to spend 2% of your GDP on defense. Right now only four countries are doing it.'”

Yet the failure of many of European leaders to live up to their defense commitments “doesn’t change our interest,” Gen. Hodges says. “And the U.S. economic link to Europe, to the EU, dwarfs any other economic link in the world, anywhere in the Pacific, China, India, you name it. So if for no other reason it’s in our interest that Europe be stable, that people make money so they can buy U.S. products. . . .

We provide capability assurance here by being present here.”

Gen. Hodges says there is also a huge payoff in U.S. security from U.S.-European cooperation. The main lesson of the post-9/11 wars is that “we are not going to do anything by ourselves militarily,” he notes. The U.S. “needs the capacity that other countries can bring.” These benefits come “from a relatively small investment—I mean, U.S. Army Europe is 2% of the Army’s budget and about 5% of the Army’s manpower. . . . You can’t sit back in Virginia, Texas or Oregon and build relationships with people here.” He quotes his predecessor, Lt. Gen. Donald Campbell: “You can’t surge trust.”

Nor can the U.S. project national power world-wide, as it has since the end of World War II, with an overstretched Army. “There are 10 division headquarters in the Army,” he says. “Nine of them are committed right now. I’ve never seen that. I don’t think at the height of Iraq and Afghanistan you had nine out of 10 division headquarters committed against some requirement.” That leaves little in reserve if another conflict breaks out.

Liz Warren Fracturing the Democrat Party?

Posted on February 9, 2015February 9, 2015 by Denise Simon

The Working Families Party, a union-backed organization whose endorsements are sought after by mainstream Democrats. Let them not bite the hand that feeds them.

The party set up a supposedly profit-making business that supplies services like contact lists and manpower to turn out the vote. The candidates, it is said, pay market rates for the help.

There are two problems. First, the party and the company are one and the same – same address, same employees, same bosses. Second, the party does a lot more to help its candidates. Which the party is entitled to do as long as it acts independently of the candidate – or as long as the value of its assistance stays within strict donation guidelines.

Neither of those appears to be the case, signaling that the Working Families Party has likely funneled big unreported contributions to candidates, most prominently public advocate contender Councilman Bill de Blasio.

*** Enter Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Working Families Party Calls on Elizabeth Warren to Run for President

By ALEXANDER BURNS

February 8, 2015

Leaders of New York’s Working Families Party on Sunday urged Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to seek the Democratic nomination for president next year, formally calling on her to enter the 2016 race for the White House.

By voting to encourage a Warren candidacy, the Working Families Party became the latest liberal group to support her as a potential primary challenger to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has not formally announced that she will seek the Democratic nomination but is the presumed favorite.

Several organizations on the left, led by MoveOn.org and Democracy for America, have already organized a campaign designed to lure Ms. Warren, with her brand of economic populism, into making a bid for the presidency.

“We know a champion for working families when we see one,” Bill Lipton, New York State director of the Working Families Party, said. “The only thing better than watching Elizabeth Warren take Wall Street to task from the Senate would be helping her bring our issues to the center of the national debate.” Ms. Warren, who is beloved among liberals as a fierce critic of what she sees as the abuses of the financial industry, has repeatedly ruled out running for president in 2016. Lacey Rose, a spokeswoman for the senator, reiterated that stance in an email on Sunday. “As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president and doesn’t support these draft campaigns,” Ms. Rose wrote.

The Working Families Party, led by a coalition of activists, liberal advocacy groups and labor unions, deliberated on an early-evening conference call before voting to encourage Ms. Warren to join the campaign. Party officials declined to share the tally of the vote.

The pro-Warren vote comes at a potentially awkward moment for New York Democrats, who have sought to draw their party’s 2016 presidential nominating convention to New York City. Mayor Bill de Blasio has aggressively promoted the bid on the national stage, where Democrats aligned with Mrs. Clinton hold powerful sway.

Although Mr. de Blasio has a longstanding relationship with the Working Families Party, party officials said that neither the mayor nor his staff had played a role in the group’s deliberations involving Ms. Warren.

Several Working Families leaders stressed that the vote was not meant as a rejection of Mrs. Clinton, who twice earned the party’s endorsement as a candidate for the United States Senate.

“It’s a vote in the context of two undeclared candidates for president,” said Ed Ott, former head of the New York City Central Labor Council. “What the Warren vote reflects is that people want a Democratic Party with a spine.”

Javier Valdes, executive director of Make the Road Action Fund, a Latino-oriented liberal group, characterized the vote as a statement of enthusiasm for a competitive primary. “Secretary Clinton has had a strong track record with our community and what we really want here is a strong debate about Democratic values and working family values,” Mr. Valdes, a Working Families Party leader, said.

Saudi King Salman, a Reformer?

Posted on February 5, 2015February 5, 2015 by Denise Simon

Barack Obama visited the Saudi kingdom to pay respects for the passing of King Abdullah.

Let us remember when Hillary Clinton called Bashir al Assad, the tyrant Islamist ruler of Syria a reformer and many are calling King Abdullah’s replacement, King Salman the same thing. Head-scratch. Seems King Salman’s past and perhaps current nefarious connections need some real scrutiny.

“Yet Salman has an ongoing track record of patronizing hateful extremists that is now getting downplayed for political convenience. As former CIA official Bruce Riedel astutely pointed out, Salman was the regime’s lead fundraiser for mujahideen, or Islamic holy warriors, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, as well as for Bosnian Muslims during the Balkan struggles of the 1990s. In essence, he served as Saudi Arabia’s financial point man for bolstering fundamentalist proxies in war zones abroad.

As longtime governor of Riyadh, Salman was often charged with maintaining order and consensus among members of his family. Salman’s half brother King Khalid (who ruled from 1975 to 1982) therefore looked to him early on in the Afghan conflict to use these family contacts for international objectives, appointing Salman to run the fundraising committee that gathered support from the royal family and other Saudis to support the mujahideen against the Soviets.

Riedel writes that in this capacity, Salman “work[ed] very closely with the kingdom’s Wahhabi clerical establishment.” Another CIA officer who was stationed in Pakistan in the late 1980s estimates that private Saudi donations during that period reached between $20 million and $25 million every month. And as Rachel Bronson details in her book, Thicker Than Oil: America’s Uneasy Partnership With Saudi Arabia, Salman also helped recruit fighters for Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, an Afghan Salafist fighter who served as a mentor to both Osama bin Laden and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”

***

Saudi Arabia crowns new king who financed jihad

In 1978, the Saudi monarchy decided to expand the exportation of fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam across the world through the establishment of the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). About 10 years later, IIRO’s Philippine branch was established by Osama Bin Laden’s brother-in-law, which subsequently funded Philippine terrorists. By the 2000s, IIRO’s branch in Indonesia began funding Al Qaeda training camps.

The Bush administration designated IIRO-Philippines and IIRO-Indonesia as terrorist entities in 2006. IIRO’s U.S. offices were closed at the time, although IIRO appeared to reopen an office in Florida 2010. IIRO is the fourth best-funded Islamic foundation in the world according to a 2011 study.

The man who selected the leadership of IIRO and approved its spending from its inception is the new king of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz:

From the Washington Free Beacon:

…[T]hroughout his public career in government, Salman has embraced radical Muslim clerics and has been tied to the funding of radical groups in Afghanistan, as well as an organization found to be plotting attacks against America, according to various reports and information provided by David Weinberg, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

In 2001, an international raid of the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, which Salman founded in 1993, unearthed evidence of terrorist plots against America, according to separate exposés written by Dore Gold, an Israeli diplomat, and Robert Baer, a former CIA officer.

Salman is further accused by Baer of having “personally approved all important appointments and spending” at the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), a controversial Saudi charity that was hit with sanctions following the attacks of September 11, 2001, for purportedly providing material support to al Qaeda.

Salman also has been reported to be responsible for sending millions of dollars to the radical mujahedeen that waged jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s, according to Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who is now director of the Brookings Intelligence Project.

“In the early years of the war—before the U.S. and the Kingdom ramped up their secret financial support for the anti-Soviet insurgency—this private Saudi funding was critical to the war effort,” according to Riedel. “At its peak, Salman was providing $25 million a month to the mujahedeen. He was also active in raising money for the Bosnian Muslims in the war with Serbia”…

Category Archives: Industry Jobs Oil Economics

The Cuban Adjustment Act ala Mexico

Mexican border now a major entry point for Cuban migrants

HSBC Web of Corruption Includes Familiar Names

More stories about

Merkel, Obama and Putin

Liz Warren Fracturing the Democrat Party?

Working Families Party Calls on Elizabeth Warren to Run for President

February 8, 2015

Saudi King Salman, a Reformer?

Saudi Arabia crowns new king who financed jihad