This article is from the BBC News website. � British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-12936613
national news state news financial news Europe news read more
The US government has beefed up security at the Mexico border in recent years It's a story repeated throughout American culture, in theatre, film and novels: the penniless immigrant arrives on American shores seeking a new life and, through hard work and determination, prospers and thrives.
Such tales are a quintessential part of the "American Dream", the idea that anyone willing to work hard and think big can come to the US and "make it".
But, at a time when immigration is a divisive, hot-button political issue, is that dream still possible?
The dream itself is alive and well, says Ben Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Council.
"The spirit of the people who have the drive to uproot themselves and pursue this dream across the world is powerful. It continues to shine through," Mr Johnson told the BBC.
But the spirit is not sufficient if the system won't allow it. And America's immigration system does not make it particularly easy to start a new life on its shores.
American immigration policy is largely family based, meaning residency is most commonly granted to the immediate family of existing residents or citizens.
We asked for your definitions of the American Dream in less than 140 characters. Here are some of the best:
BlueHelm: It's driving across this remarkable land - from the Golden Gate to Monument Valley, from Bourbon Street to Gotham.worldgal69: "A TV in every room, a gun under every pillow"DavidKeech: Had the #americandream last night. Was driving West in a beat-up Dodge Charger. Bird on the stereo, Jackson Pollock riding shotgun.AdibMattar: ... When caterpillars believe they can become butterflies, regardless of their size, speed or colour.latrice_davis: The #americandream is to not be in debt. (I'd like to think that's a universal dream, but I digress.)Tweeting the American DreamFor others, visas are granted mostly based on skill levels, with highly skilled immigrants having a much easier time getting work permits than unskilled labourers.
So-called skilled workers - usually people with a university education or professional training - have a range of visa options. The most common visa, the H1B class, currently has a ceiling of 65,000 each year.
That quota is easily filled every year. Before the recession, it was filled in the same month the visas were released.
At the moment, Mr Johnson says, it gets filled in eight or nine months, meaning that for several months of the year, H1B visas simply are not available regardless of the demand for them.
For unskilled labourers, the US grants just 5,000 work visas each year to people employed in fields other than agriculture.
Yet, according to Maurice Belanger, a director at the National Immigration Forum, the US economy was absorbing about 300,000 such workers each year prior to the recession.
These workers are illegal or undocumented. Although there are certainly examples of undocumented immigrants becoming prosperous, mostly they are concentrated in low-paying jobs and have essentially no power to bargain for improved conditions.
The threat of deportation hangs over their American dreams. Those penniless immigrants are not thriving like their celebrated predecessors.
Clarissa Martinez, an immigration expert at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group, says that America's immigration system is hindering the ability of foreign-born people to achieve the American Dream.
Clarissa Martinez National Council of La Raza“We are experiencing a systemic failure. We have a system where legal immigration channels are clogged and that is fostering the growing undocumented population”
"We're going through a period where we are seeing if immigrants can make it blindfolded and with both hands tied behind their back," Ms Martinez told the BBC.
"We are experiencing a systemic failure. We have a system where legal immigration channels are clogged and that is fostering the growing undocumented population."
Mr Johnson says that the failure of Congress to reform the immigration system in recent years is America's loss.
The US, he says, is missing out by refusing to seize on the desire of foreigners to become part of the American labour force.
He argues that America would be better off if it treated immigration policy as a recruitment tool rather than "a terrorism net that people have to try to swim through".
In recent years in particular, American politicians have tended to view immigration through the lens of terrorism or national sovereignty rather than as an opportunity to add dynamism and flexibility to the labour market, Mr Johnson says.
"There is a kind of arrogance in our immigration system that we believe that whatever hurdles we throw down, people will be desperate enough to come to the United States that they will find a way to put up with them," Mr Johnson told the BBC.
Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, firmly disagrees that America is missing out by not opening its doors to immigrants.
"Whose American Dream are we talking about?" he asks. "Immigration policy is a boon for the immigrants coming here. But what about the American dreams of Americans?"
The US immigration debate has provoked a passionate response from both sides Mr Krikorian argues that low-skilled foreign workers are flooding the American market, competing with American workers. Even with low paying jobs, those workers and their families are often better off than in their home countries.
But their willingness to work for pay and conditions that many Americans refuse to tolerate has had a depressive effect on wages at the low-skilled end of the labour scale, Mr Krikorian says.
That disproportionately affects the economic mobility of African Americans and US-born Hispanics, who make up a large part of the low-skilled work force.
"Anybody who needs a leg up in the labour market - young workers who don't have college, handicapped people, ex-cons, recovering drug addicts - sees his prospects sabotaged by [illegal workers]," Mr Krikorian says.
Denying employers access to cheap illegal labour could force them to provide better wages and conditions to lure legal workers.
Moreover, he argues, these cheap workers are holding America's economy back by reducing the motivation to invest in technologies that save money over the long term.
For example, there is little incentive to develop advanced harvesting techniques when there is a ready supply of people to do the work without the capital investment.
"Productivity increases are where long-term wage improvements have to come from. We are retarding that process by reducing the incentives for employers to invest," he says.
"Low-skilled immigration isn't good for American competitiveness in the long run."
In the end, Mr Krikorian says, the choice comes down to whose American Dream do you support: the dreams of Americans or of foreign born immigrants?
"I choose Americans," he says.
This article is from the BBC News website. � British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/world-us-canada-12925299
Lord Stirrup stepped down as head of the armed forces last year The UK is "spreading its forces very thin" and a political resolution in Libya must be found quickly, a former armed forces chief has told peers.
Lord Stirrup said that Afghanistan used up most military resources and what was left was being used in Libya.
There could be "severe consequences" if there was a crisis involving Iran, for example, he told a Lords debate.
The UK, France and US have carried out strikes on Col Gaddafi's forces in Libya, aimed at protecting civilians.
Nato has now taken command of aerial operations in Libya, which followed a UN resolution backing a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" short of an occupying force to protect Libyan civilians, following violence after an uprising against Col Muammar Gaddafi's 41-year rule.
But several peers with military backgrounds used Friday's debate to raise concerns about the pressures on British forces, at a time of defence spending cuts.
Lord Stirrup, chief of the defence staff between 2006 and 2010, told peers that while it had been pushed off the front pages - Afghanistan continued to use up most British military resources.
He said: "What little we have had left in the locker over the past couple of years for dealing with other contingencies has consisted mainly of air and maritime capabilities, these have largely been consumed by the Libya operation, so that locker is now looking pretty bare and yet we still face huge risks."
He said there could be "severe consequences" in an area which British national interests were concerned" in a way they are not in Libya" - such as an Iranian "miscalculation in the Gulf".
Lord Stirrup said the armed forces were a "finite resource and ever more finite by the month".
He said the UK must see the Libya mission through but in view of risks elsewhere "and in view of the degree to which we have now drawn down on our military account" - placing the very highest degree of urgency for finding a political resolution to this crisis as soon as possible."
Lord Craig, another former chief of the defence staff, also warned about over committing the armed forces.
Lord Robertson Labour peer and former Nato Secretary General“When nations put national interest and primitive rivalries before collective security and collective action, then Nato becomes a paper tiger”
Due to action in Iraq, Afghanistan and cutbacks in last year's strategic defence review "our forces have reached levels of commitment which have to be reduced", he said. He said it was "fortuitous" that the UK contribution in Libya was mainly from the RAF and Royal Navy, which were "less committed" in Afghanistan.
He also warned against "loose talks of arming the rebels" which "smacks of mission creep" and could jeopardise support from Arab states.
"We are on a high wire without any safety net and in the hands of opinion formers who could so quickly turn to our disadvantage these developments - are we not very close to being accused of involvement and taking sides in a Libyan civil war?"
The strategic defence review announced last October will see defence spending cut by 8% over four years - it spelled the end for the UK's Harrier jump jets, Navy flagship HMS Ark Royal and planned Nimrod spy planes.
Former chief of naval staff and Labour peer Lord West said the government should look again at the defence review: "There's no doubt a carrier and air group would have been invaluable at all stages of the operation, particularly early on... [HMS] Invincible is being towed past Libya for scrap and Ark Royal is on eBay for sale - and I think that's something we need to ponder."
He also warned there would inevitably be some civilian casualties and the coalition would have to "harden our hearts to that" and explain there is no "moral equivalence" to what Col Gaddafi was doing, as it was bound to lead to more pressure from Arab states.
Labour peer, and former Nato secretary general, Lord Robertson said he supported the mission but criticised "undignified squabbling" between European members of Nato over the no-fly zone and said Europe had to "wake up" to the challenges.
He said Nato was "as powerful or feeble as its member states want it to be. And when nations put national interest and primitive rivalries before collective security and collective action, then Nato becomes a paper tiger in an increasingly complex and dangerous international jungle".
This article is from the BBC News website. � British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-politics-12932532
This article is from the BBC News website. � British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-12917502
fox news national news state news financial news Europe news
Woman Smiling will be exhibited in Moscow ahead of its London sale A Lucian Freud painting of his ex-wife, Suzy Boyt, is expected to fetch up to £4.5m when it is auctioned in London.
Woman Smiling, which Freud painted in 1958 and 1959, will go under the hammer at Christie's on 28 June.
The auction house said it had pioneered the use of "thick, expressionist brush-strokes" for which he is well-known.
Freud 's 1995 piece Benefits Supervisor Sleeping set the world record price for a living artist when it sold for $33.6m (£21m) in New York in 2008.
Woman Smiling was once owned by the wife of James Bond creator Ian Fleming, who sold the piece in 1973 for just over £5,000.
The painting of Boyt - mother to five of Freud's children - has been in a private collection since 1985.
Five early drawings by the artist are also up for sale in June's Post-War and Contemporary Art auction.
The pieces, from the collection of Kay Saatchi, include a pencil drawing, Boy With Pipe, as well as some detailed studies of animals.
Woman Smiling, together with the five works on paper, will be exhibited in Moscow on 2 and 3 April.
Francis Outred, head of post-war and contemporary art at Christie's Europe, hailed Freud as "one of the artistic giants of the post-war era".
This article is from the BBC News website. � British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/entertainment-arts-12931464
Concerns have been raised about eating disorders in young children There is an urgent need for services to recognise and treat eating disorders in young children, say doctors.
The first study of the scale of the problem in the UK has been published in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
It study of UK and Irish data suggests three in every 100,000 children under the age of 13 have an eating disorder, including children as young as six.
The charity Beat has called for more specialist treatment for young people as it could save lives.
There has been anecdotal evidence of children having eating disorders at even younger ages, but the issue had not been formally studied.
The researchers from University College London used monitoring data from between March 2005 and May 2006 in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
They identified 208 cases of eating disorders in children between five and 13, with more than four in five cases being in girls.
Dr Dasha Nicholls, a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist at Great Ormond Street Hospital, said there were huge developmental differences between children and adolescents and adults.
"Unfortunately, many eating disorder services are aimed specifically at adolescents," she said.
"Our study shows there is an urgent need to consider the needs of children with eating disorders separately and not simply lower the age range of existing adolescent services."
She added that it had been thought that puberty could be a trigger for eating disorders, however, that did not account for these cases.
A spokesperson for the charity Beat said: "Beat welcomes this new research from UCL - and supports the call for improved diagnosis and specialist treatment for these young people.
"Although there is first class treatment available in this country for adolescents and adults with eating disorders, there is very little for those under the age of 13.
"The earlier the intervention, the better the long term prognosis for a full recovery to avoid these young lives being blighted or even lost to these serious conditions."
This article is from the BBC News website. � British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/health-12920551
fox news national news state news financial news Europe news
Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder (R-Medina) watches a Senate Bill 5 video produced by the Governor's office during a news conference Wednesday, March 30, 2011, in Columbus, Ohio.
Chairman of the House labor committee Rep. Joseph Ueker (R-Loveland) answers questions about Senate Bill 5 during a news conference Wednesday, March 30, 2011, in Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder (R-Medina) answers questions about Senate Bill 5 during a news conference Wednesday, March 30, 2011, in Columbus, Ohio.
Walter Hudson, of Toledo, protests against Senate Bill 5 at the Ohio statehouse Tuesday, March 29, 2011, in Columbus, Ohio. The bill would strip public employees of collective bargaining rights.
Tom Fagan, of Dayton, protests against Senate Bill 5 at the Ohio statehouse Tuesday, March 29, 2011, in Columbus, Ohio. The bill would strip public employees of collective bargaining rights.
Ohio lawmakers have had their chance to vote on a bill limiting collective bargaining rights for 350,000 public workers across the state. Next will be the public's turn.
Even before the contentious Senate Bill 5 ? in some ways tougher than Wisconsin's ? had cleared the Legislature late Wednesday, unions and Democrats in this once-proud labor stronghold vowed to put it on November's ballot as a referendum.
"O-H-I-O! S.B. 5 has got to go!" protesters chanted ahead of a final Senate vote of 17-16 that sent the bill to Gov. John Kasich, who planned to sign it Thursday. The vote followed a day filled with Statehouse demonstrations by about 750 people, who raucously chanted and shouted throughout the process. After a House vote of 53-44, opponents spewed expletives at House members.
The vitriol wasn't limited to the Statehouse.
Leo Geiger, 34, a Republican who works as a sewer inspector for the city of Dayton, said he's "deathly afraid that this is going to affect me, my family and the entire state of Ohio in an incredibly negative way."
He believes the bill is political payback for unions' support of Democrats in November's election.
"I find this to be loathsome," he said from Dayton on Wednesday night. He didn't attend protests because he couldn't take the time off. "I find this to be disrespectful to Ohioans and disrespectful to the process of democracy."
The measure affects safety workers, teachers, nurses and a host of other government personnel. It allows unions to negotiate wages and certain working conditions but not health care, sick time or pension benefits. It gets rid of automatic pay increases, and replaces them with merit raises or performance pay. Workers would also be banned from striking.
A ballot challenge would stall implementation of the law that Republicans championed as vital to Ohio's economic future. Backers have 90 days after Kasich signs the bill to gather 231,148 valid signatures from at least half Ohio's 88 counties to get it on the fall ballot.
"Local government and taxpayers need control over their budgets. This bill, as amended and changed, is a bill that will give control back to the people who pay the bills," House Speaker Bill Batchelder said Wednesday.
Kasich has said his $55.5 billion, two-year state budget counts on unspecified savings from lifting union protections to fill an $8 billion hole.
During House debate, state Rep. Robert Hagan, a Democrat from Youngstown, questioned whether the bill was aimed at saving money.
"Don't ever lie to us and don't be hypocritical and don't dance around it as if it's finances, because you know what it is: It's to bust the union," Hagan told his fellow lawmakers.
Democratic state Sen. Charleta Tavares, a recent Columbus city councilwoman, called the bill "paternalistic, patronizing, disrespectful and condescending" to city leaders who balance their budgets annually, not every two years as Ohio does.
As she awaited the Senate vote, Pickerington teacher Patricia Kuhn-Morgan said educating kids is the best way to create jobs. She predicted Wednesday's votes will hurt GOP lawmakers on Election Day.
"I've spoken to a lot of educators who are typically straight-ticket Republicans that have said to me that they won't ever vote for another Republican because of how this bill's been pushed through and the democratic process has been abused," she said.
But Chris Littleton, who represents a coalition of tea party groups called the Ohio Liberty Council, disagreed. He said tea party backers who helped seal Republican victories last fall are all for the changes.
"We set making Ohio a right-to-work state and complete elimination of employee unions as a primary objective for 2011," he said. "So we would have liked to see it go even further, but we are definitely supportive of this measure."
Though protests were much larger in Wisconsin, Ohio unions claim they hold the hearts of a majority of voters in their political swing state. Republicans say polling indicates a high number of voters, though perhaps ones not as vocal as union supporters, favor the collective bargaining changes and would uphold the new law.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill this month eliminating most of state workers' collective bargaining rights. That measure exempts police officers and firefighters; Ohio's does not.
The Ohio bill has drawn thousands of demonstrators, prompted a visit from the Rev. Jesse Jackson and packed hearing rooms in the weeks before the Senate passed the earlier version of the measure. Its reception in the House was quieter, as unions resolved themselves to its approval and shifted their strategy to the fall ballot.
Democratic state Sen. Joe Schiavoni said the way the bill had been rushed through the legislative process without union input was unfair ? but he said voters would have the last word.
At the ballot box, he said, "all Ohioans will get the opportunity to right the wrongs they committed in the last election, and, ladies and gentlemen, that is fair."
???
Associated Press writers Ann Sanner and JoAnne Viviano contributed to this report.
Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134174309&ft=1&f=
