text:
How Trump Era Immigration Enforcement Violates the Law, by Geoffrey A. Hoffman
by Guest Blogger — Friday, Jan. 25, 2019
Since the Trump era began more than two years ago with the election of 2016, the administration has put into place an increasingly draconian legal regime of restrictions against immigrants. Navigating these outrageous examples of executive overreach has been challenging. The current administration has attempted to cloak the new restrictions under the guise of quasi-legality. However, a close look reveals that each attempt has in some way either violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the U.S. Constitution and/or other legal authorities such as international legal norms and instruments.[1]
One of the most recent examples is the so-called interim final rule and the Presidential Proclamation, which purported to change the rules regarding asylum eligibility to limit it to only those entering at a designated port of entry in a way completely at odds with current law.[2] In Matter of A-B-, the former Attorney General Jeff Sessions attempted to rewrite the definition of "refugee" under the INA, in a way that attempts to change the rules for domestic violence asylum seekers, and in addition (through dicta) shape adjudicators' views on gang violence and other private actor cases.[3] In addition, DHS has just attempted to invoke (incorrectly) the contiguous territories provision in INA 235 to apply (erroneously) to all asylum seekers.[4] These, and many other restrictions have been foisted upon the immigrant community. Because they have come so fast and furious we must acknowledge a sea-change is occurring. It affects virtually all aspects of immigration law and policy. These changes will not be easily reversed or remedied. These shattering changes are just the tip of the iceberg, as the administration is just warming up. The future may hold new, and even more insidious ways, to continue to revamp the immigration legal landscape in ways injurious to immigrants' rights.
The examples discussed here show that the current administration has become increasingly emboldened and brazen. The fight has now shifted to federal court litigation in a way that few had predicted. There has been an uptick in favorable district court cases, which have pushed back against the onslaught of bizarre policy choices promulgated by the administration. To inform the ever-changing role of the immigration lawyer in these troubled times, the following questions must be confronted: Where do these more and more outrageous examples of executive branch overreach stop? What about threatened executive orders such as the as yet unrealized Executive Order on birthright citizenship? How would such an order even be operationalized to actually strip people of their citizenship? What does all this mean for the concept of law and the legal functioning of disparate federal agencies? In the latest most recent reporting we have seen consideration by this administration of many for denaturalization proceedings.[5] These questions should form the background for our thinking about ways to move forward as immigration advocates against the latest changes.
Consider three broad areas of immigration law and the changes happening in each. These are symptomatic of the types of changes attempted to be put into place. The first involves the most important changes in humanitarian cases (for example, asylum, credible fear, and related issues). The second relates to the adjudication and treatment surrounding employment-based cases (for example, H1Bs, L1s and other various types of categories being made more difficult if not impossible, thus affecting the possibility for legal immigration). Third, I discuss the prime example affecting all family-based cases: the expansion of the public charge ground of inadmissibility.
The administration has sought to infiltrate immigration policy and procedures. This has been done, at times, incrementally, but also drastically and without prior notice. These policy choices should be seen as part of a larger more grand and insidious strategy: to vastly reform the immigration laws without the troublesome need to seek Congressional oversight or intervention. The strategy is also one which has triggered an active fight with the judiciary where the government, for example, most clearly exemplified with Trump's attempt to rescind DACA, has failed to completely derail the program, at least to date without success.[6]
Humanitarian Cases
The prime example of the administration's blatant attempt to reshape the calculus of adjudicating humanitarian cases can be found in Matter of A-B-.[7] In that decision, as alluded to earlier, then Attorney General (AG) Sessions attempted to create new requirements for asylum cases involving private actor violence, not sanctioned by INA 101 or INA 208 nor by any prior BIA case law. In overruling the reigning case, Matter of A-R-C-G-, the main complaint on the part of the AG seemed to be that DHS had conceded too much and the IJ had not engaged in sufficient fact-finding in the prior case.[8] The AG was intent on editorializing as much as possible in this bizarre decision, one of its kind in terms of all prior BIA cases and certainly unique among Attorney General decisions. While the Attorney General has the authority by statute and regulation to refer cases to himself, this heretofore rarely used procedural possibility has become apparently de rigueur for this administration as a means of changing policy and procedure.[9]
Importantly, the former AG in A-B- creates out of thin air a new interpretation of the definition of refugee in INA 101(a)(42) and unilaterally reformulates the particular social group articulated in the previous precedential case, Matter of A-R-C-G- .[10] Instead of applying the plain language of the statute requiring that the government be shown to be "unable or unwilling" "to protect" the applicant, the new gloss is that the government must somehow be required "to prevent" the violence or, even more startling, be shown to have condoned the private actor violence. It is clearly much harder to prove a government (or anyone) could prevent something from happening versus protecting someone from hard. It is also almost impossible to find a government which would "condone" private violence. While it is possible to imagine some draconian regime where private actor violence is explicitly condoned, it is a completely illogical and unreasonable requirement to force an applicant to show, which is apparently the point. Which country's government or police force would expressly ever publically "condone" violence against women and provide such evidence to the public or in ways that litigants could access such evidence?
Even if such evidence were available, there is now a necessity to produce an even greater quantum of evidence in the form of experts, medical reports, affidavits etc, which of course will be an impossibility for a large proportion of applicants. That said, in A-B-, the AG interestingly and importantly recognized up front he is not saying that asylum can never be granted in any private actor case. Rather, he is saying that it would be very difficult to prove.[11] This explicit and frank concession up front in the decision begs the following question: what amount of evidence would satisfy the new, more stringent (even if ludicrous and ultra vires) standard under Matter of A-B-?
Astute commentators have pointed out that despite A-B-'s dicta, the scope of the decision should be strictly limited to its facts.[12] Most crucially, the decision does not and cannot change the standards for other types of asylum claims which may overlap with PSG as alternative bases for relief. For example, where an abused applicant for domestic violence believes that all women should be free of their abusive husbands then this should qualify as political opinion, and especially where that belief encompasses also a desire to be free from corrupt police who fail to protect or are in league with gangs or other private actors within a country. Political opinion,race, including ethnicity, religion, nationality (including linguistic claims), and others may provide alternative forms of nexus not affected by A-B-.
Furthermore, if an applicant can identify another (more particularized or fully articulated) PSG than the one formulated in A-B- then this may be another strategy to provide relief despite the AG's decision. For example, in cases where a woman's relationship with the abuser is complicated by his gang affiliation and status, tied to police corruption, or relates to her ability to serve as a prosecutorial witness against the abuser or gang then incorporating these further facts into new PSG articulations which may be more successful, even despite the influence of A-B.
A further point is that the former AG took great pains to emphasize his decision in A-B- applies not just to immigration judges, but also to the DHS agencies overseeing adjudications of asylum and credible fear claims. To that end USCIS set forth new policy guidance which tries to apply and incorporate the new requirements in A-B- for their officers, while still emphasizing the need for case-by-case adjudication. The clear import on the part of former AG Sessions was that the more stringent requirements should serve to impact applicants' credible fear interviews, before they even get into the pipeline of asylum-only removal proceedings. Statistics show that the new rules are having a profound effect and that the denials of credible fear and asylum claims are higher than ever, and climbing.[13]
In light of the wide-reaching effects of Matter of A-B-, plaintiffs brought suit in late 2018, in a case called Grace v. Whitaker[14] in the District of Columbia challenging negative credible fear determinations which were made based on A-B- and the agency's subsequent policy memorandum. The plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies by seeking review of the negative findings, but the immigration judges in their cases all affirmed the asylum unit's determinations. On December 19, 2018, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued a permanent injunction to twelve (12) plaintiffs.[15]
The over 100-page decision by Judge Sullivan is a watershed moment. The district court found it had jurisdiction to review the issue, an important consideration given the sometimes confusing and expansive jurisdiction-stripping provisions found within INA 242. Importantly, the court found that there was jurisdiction because this was "a systemic challenge to the legality of a 'written policy directive, written policy directive guideline, or written procedure issued by or under the authority of the Attorney General to implement' the expedited removal process." [16]
Judge Sullivan held "that Congress has not 'spoken directly' on the question of whether victims of domestic or gang-related persecution fall into the particular social group category" and that Matter of A-B- "create[d] a general rule against [domestic and/or gang violence] claims at the credible fear stage" and that the rule was "not a permissible interpretation of the statute." Id. at 56. Additionally, the general rule "impermissibly heighten[ed] the standard at the credible fear stage[,]" which rendered the rule arbitrary and capricious. On the "unable and unwilling" standard, Judge Sullivan further found that requiring a government to condone or to be completely helpless to prevent persecution by a non-government actor violated the INA and the APA because the "unwilling or unable" standard for persecution "was settled at the time the Refugee Act was codified[.]" Id. at 59, 66.
The question becomes what is the potential scope of Grace v. Whitaker and whether it can be used to more broadly argue against all uses of A-B- not just in the context of agency credible fear determinations, but in all domestic violence asylum cases whether before USCIS in an asylum interview or the immigration courts in removal proceedings. The issue was discussed in a recent blog by Hon. Jeffrey Chase. The former immigration judge pointed out that immigration courts generally do not feel bound by the district court decisions due to the INA 242 provision which provides for exclusive jurisdiction in the circuit courts over final orders of removal.[17]
Despite Judge Chase's valid point about exclusive jurisdiction, the district court's decision in Grace can and still should be used in pending and current removal cases to argue that although the decision does not purport to reach outside the credible fear and expedited removal context, the arguments are equally applicable in cases before immigration judges. If an agency (DHS) is acting in violation of the INA and APA (arbitrarily and capriciously) by applying A-B- then it would seem EOIR should be on notice that a similar application in their courts would be equally as violative of these federal statutes. In addition, advocates can always argue that any decision should be strictly limited to its facts and Grace certainly supports that argument. Therefore, Grace can and should be cited to preserve the argument that A-B- was wrongly decided in all pending private actor cases in removal proceedings. Finally, as a systemic decision it will be especially relevant to preserve as the cases relying on A-B- make their way to the circuit courts and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.
Another example in the humanitarian context is the President's Proclamation concerning asylum eligibility. It attempts to limit such claims to people who have applied only at designated ports of entry in violation of the INA. The Proclamation facially is premised on INA 212(f) and attempts to draw the connection between the presidential power in that context to designate certain persons "detrimental" to U.S. interests, as we saw in Trump v. Hawaii. There, the statute was found to "exude deference" to the President and that decision apparently emboldened the president to attempt further restrictions under INA 212(f). Accompanying the Proclamation was an "interim final rule" which was immediately challenged in federal district court.
In a ruling in late November, 2018, District Judge Jon S. Tigar issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the application of the rule as a violation of the INA. In his decision, the judge opined, "Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden … Defendants' claims that the rule can somehow be harmonized with the INA are not persuasive." In late December, the Supreme Court rejected the government's bid to stay the district judge's order.[18] The decision to deny the stay was 5-4, with Justice Roberts joining the more liberal justices
The administration has been frustrated at almost every turn (with the exception of its final iteration of the "travel ban") in attempting to unilaterally change the rules in the humanitarian context. Other salient examples beyond the scope of this article include DACA, TPS, the Contiguous Territories provision mandating that those who seek asylum even at designated ports of entry await their removal proceedings in Mexico (yet to be challenged). Several possibilities exist for those advocates litigating against these changes in individual cases, including but not limited to FOIA litigation, Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, and cases involving challenges to individual agency actions which violate the Administrative Procedure Act and/or the INA based on the general power of a federal court to hear a federal question under 28 USC 1331.
Employment-Based Cases
Although less sensational and not as apparent to the public, there are many other examples of restrictions applied to employment-based cases. For example, the administration issued a policy memorandum in March, 2018, relating to new rules relating to H1-B visas.[19] The H1-B is a very valuable avenue for some and companies like it because it enables them "to hire highly skilled foreign workers in fields that require technical and theoretical expertise."[20] According to the new memo, applicants must now supply "detailed statements of work or work orders" about any duties performed by a worker holding an H-1B visa at a third-party site.[21] In addition, employers are required to provide "more information" about why they need to hire someone from abroad to complete a job. Now, a visa beneficiary should have "specific and non-speculative qualifying assignments in a specialty occupation for the beneficiary for the entire time requested in the petition." H-1B visa holders could earn less money than their employers promise or perform "non-specialty" jobs when hired out to any third-party workplace, the memo provides.[22]
In terms of processing adjustment of status applications, new USCIS policies have resulted in extreme backlogs. Now, a "new mandated in-person interview" for all applicants has "increased processing time and slowed applications to a crawl." [23] The new USCIS policy allows officers the right to deny "any visa or green card application that is missing evidence or contains an error without giving applicants a chance to fix it."[24]This new policy means that many more people with lawful visas could be automatically placed into removal proceedings, whereas before they would be issued the request for evidence or notice of intent to deny or chance to re-file without the need to go before a judge who may not have jurisdiction over their case.[25]
These increased restrictions are not limited to one type of visa, but apply across the board. Take for instance, the L-1 or intra-company transferee visa. Under the Trump administration's policies, access to the L-1 has become more difficult as applicants have seen increased scrutiny by USCIS. In the past, those Canadians subject to NAFTA have enjoyed on the spot L-1 visa processing. Now, reportedly, in addition to CBP's review, "the [L-1] petition will now also be sent to the USCIS service center for processing of the I-797 notice approving the petition so increasing the time it takes to obtain a L1 visa."[26] This has resulted in greatly increased wait times and delays for L-1s.[27]
Commentators also noted that the new rules regarding H1-Bs and L-1s cause increased "friction" in the visa process in at least three different ways: "increasing scrutiny of H-1B applicants, increasing the number of denials and lengthening the approval times."[28] The new rules make it more difficult for the lower skilled jobs to qualify.[29] The rules also result in more wage inflation and the resultant increase in visa processing will "favor[] the sophisticated firms over the less-sophisticated firms."[30] It also "encourages companies over the medium to long range to locate their R&D centers and technical centers outside the United States."[31]
With respect to F (student), J (exchange) and M visas, the government has fundamentally changed the way the accrual of unlawful presence is measured, with profound effects for immigrants. On August 9, 2018, the administration issued new guidance.[32] Specifically, as reported on the USCIS website, those in such categories who fail to maintain their status on or after Aug. 9, 2018, will start accruing unlawful presence on the earliest of any of the following: "the day after they no longer pursue the course of study or the authorized activity, or the day after they engage in an unauthorized activity; the day after completing the course of study or program, including any authorized practical training plus any authorized grace period; the day after the I-94 expires; or the day after an immigration judge, or in certain cases, the BIA, orders them excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision is appealed)."[33]
The administration's "America First" ideology has fully pervaded its treatment of immigrants both lawful and unlawful. This was exhibited in the President Trump's reneging on an offered settlement of the DACA rescission crisis, where initially the administration seemed willing to go along with a pathway to lawful status for those with DACA, in exchange for border security. However, the Trump administration pulled out of the deal, leaving the DACA recipients in a continuing limbo. It is also apparent in the proposed RAISE Act, which would have drastic consequences for legal immigrants.
At the time of this writing, the government shutdown further evidences the lengths to which the administration is apparently willing to go to maintain it "America First" political position and perception on behalf of political supporters. The shutdown, by the way, is the ultimate irony and paradox. On the one hand, the administration is attempting to negotiate its way out of an impasse for a politically charged "Border Wall" while at the same time shutting down the non-detained (the vast majority) of immigration courts. Legitimate applicants for relief are frustrated at the (now even increasing) backlog in the courts due to the shutdown. Moreover, Trump's shutdown power play does nothing more than frustrate his own rhetoric in that it prevents the very government agencies responsible for the processing of deportation cases from doing their jobs.
Family-Based Cases
While the public charge ground of inadmissibility, under INA 212(a)(4), potentially could affect employment-based cases, it is much more likely to impact a range of family-based adjudications. The ground under the INA should be a prospective test and asks whether the applicant "at the time of application for a visa, or… application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge . . . ."[34] Many applicants for adjustment of status which are based on a familial relationship may not be in stable financial situations and thus may have a harder time overcoming this ground. To date, the I-864 or affidavit of support has been used effectively to show that either the petitioner/sponsor or a co-sponsor who will be able to support the applicant/beneficiary. The I-864 is a contract between the sponsor and the government, where the intending immigrant is the third-party beneficiary.[35]
On October 10, 2018, DHS published in the federal register a notice of proposed rulemaking, relating to "Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds." The proposed rule expands the interpretation of public charge beyond all reason. Importantly, it greatly expands what counts as a "public charge" far beyond the definition previously applied. For example, under the proposed "past and current use of Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps), Section 8 housing assistance, and the Low-Income Subsidy for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit can be used as evidence that a green card or visa applicant is inadmissible under the public charge ground."[36] In addition, "all use of cash aid, including not just TANF and SSI but also any state or local cash assistance program, could make an individual inadmissible under the public charge ground."[37]
Instead of considering the I-864, on its face, and determining whether the sponsor or co-sponsor has the requisite assets or income required for overcoming the public charge ground, the new proposal would look into the relationship of the sponsor or co-sponsor to the applicant/beneficiary. Most troublingly, the proposal establishes "heavily weighted negative" and "heavily weighted positive" factors. Among the negative factors is lack of English proficiency. Among the positive factors is having a household income at or above 250% of the federal poverty level.[38] It is unclear how an officer would weigh a case with both heavily weighted "negative" and "positive" and, moreover, whether the 250% would become a litmus test few could satisfy.
In addition to these changes, the proposal also would establish an excessive minimum bond of $10,000 which could be higher depending on the discretion of USCIS. The rule provides that the penalty for any bond breach is the full amount of bond, and "any use of a specified public benefit while the bond remains in effect constitutes such a breach."[39] As organizations have noted in their responses during the public notice period, these "harsh conditions would drive many noncitizens to accept crippling surety bond terms to avoid family separation."[40] Moreover, the rule has no limits on the USCIS adjudicator to use his or her discretion in imposing these disproportionate consequences.[41]
Paths Forward? Strategies and Anticipating the Future
Cataloguing these wide-sweeping restrictions on the part of the administration is an important first step. But, just as importantly, immigration attorneys in the Trump Era need to be ready to respond with appropriate litigation, vigorous advocacy, and effective coordination among groups to meet all the distinct and multipronged challenges.
Advocates must recognize the necessity for coordination and formulate concrete mechanisms to facilitate connections among private practitioners, nonprofit organizations, and others in the community who may have limited experience in dealing with immigration issues. Coordinating efforts may be found through law school clinics, as well as the immigration bar, such as AILA, and other groups. An example of one such effort is the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law which has been instrumental in coordinating efforts of pro bono attorneys and volunteer observers around the issue of family separation. Another example is AILA's CARA-Family Pro Bono Project which has coordinated efforts at Dilley and Karnes detention centers and helped numerous immigrants in family detention. A further example of a successful project is the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) which coordinates pro bono representation and screens cases at the BIA level through their BIA Pro Bono Project.[42] Without additional coordination, it will be impossible to effectively respond.[43]
Furthermore, because the administration's restrictions are in many cases binding on DHS, EOIR and other federal agencies, the relief from such restrictions generally will not be available before the agencies themselves, such as USCIS or the immigration courts. As a consequence, the locus of power has shifted to the federal courts and, ultimately, future efforts at comprehensive immigration reform which will come before Congress. Federal litigation will include district courts, but also may renewed efforts at litigating cases on appeal in the circuit courts, and before the Supreme Court.
Federal courts, unfortunately, are a vastly underutilized option for many immigrants. This is due to a variety of factors. The high cost of litigation is probably the most salient issue for most immigrants. Next, many immigration attorneys do not have the time or experience to litigate in federal court. Federal litigation is not tantamount to filing for a specific type of visa, and is not even comparable to immigration court, but often requires many more hours of briefing, potential discovery, depositions, and various in-person court appearances before a federal judge involving oral argument and/or evidentiary hearings. All of these factors militate against an individual immigration attorney taking up federal court actions.
Many federal actions are underutilized or may simply be completely unknown to immigrants, their families (or even their attorneys) facing delay or injustice. The mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. 1361, provides that action may be brought in federal court "to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." Given the extreme backlogs in terms of agency adjudications, there is no reason why mandamus could not be utilized to provide a way to move a case forward which is being unduly delayed. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) also provides for relief in unreasonable delay cases.[44] It further provides for review over agency actions which are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; without observance of procedure required by law. . . ." [45] A federal question is presented under 28 USC 1331 for jurisdictional purposes when an immigrant is challenging an agency practice, policy or decision that presents a legal question concerning the application of the INA to the client's specific case.[46]
For those in immigration detention or subject in custody constraints such as an ankle bracelet or other restrictions, a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 can be combined with a mandamus or APA or other claim.[47]
A final point about federal litigation as it relates to high impact litigation. Those who have thus far gone to court in efforts to challenge the expansive policies of the administration discussed above have, in large part, been successful. Whether it is in the context of restricting eligibility for asylum, challenging family separation policy, or DACA rescission, the efficacy of the federal court in the Trump Era cannot be understated or undervalued.
Being an immigration attorney in the Trump Era is far from easy. Advocates are in an unenviable position. They fight for their clients while the ground shifts constantly beneath their feet. The changes have come so rapidly that there is no way that a single attorney could keep up with all of them. Moreover, the changes looming or threatened on the horizon, such as to birthright citizenship or denaturalization, are even more drastic still. These are some of the most egregious, over-expansive and debilitating restrictions that any generation of immigration attorneys has (as yet) had to face.
Geoffrey A. Hoffman is the Director of University of Houston Law Center Immigration Clinic and clinical associate professor (Individual capacity. Institution for identification only).
[1] Proponents of these executive actions have drawn an inappropriate analogy to DACA. The changes or attempts to exert outsized executive power are not analogous to the Obama administration's DACA policy to provide prosecutorial discretion for childhood arrivals. See Letter from Shoba Sivaprasad, Jill E. Family et al., to Donald Trump, President of the U.S. (Aug. 14, 2017). By contrast, the initiatives attempted to be imposed against immigrants by the Trump administration have been far more wide-reaching and are directly in violation of portions of the INA, as will be discussed.
[2] This interim rule is currently subject to a nationwide TRO put in place by a federal district court. See East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 11/9/18, decision available at https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/east-bay-sanctuary-covenant-v-trump-tro-granted.
[3] As will be discussed, the Matter of A-B- decision does not in actuality nor can it re-write the INA despite repeated attempts in dicta to do so. Any attempt for the case to be broadly applied should be soundly rejected. See, e.g., https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/7/13/matter-of-a-b-being-misapplied-by-eoir-dhs; https://www.aila.org/infonet/former-chairman-bia-paul-w-schmidts-speech.
[4] On December 20, 2018, the DHS Secretary announced the purported use of the contiguous territories provision against asylum seekers. See https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/20/secretary-nielsen-announces-historic-action-confront-illegal-immigration. The use of 235(b)(2)(C) however is not appropriate in the context of asylum seekers. See e.g. "Contiguous Territories: The Expanded Use of Expedited Removal in the Trump Era," Maryland J. Int'l Law (June 2018). Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107737.
[5] The New York Times magazine recently featured this issue. See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/magazine/naturalized-citizenship-immigration-trump.html
[6] In a unanimous decision by the three-member panel in the Ninth Circuit, the judges ruled that the Trump Administration cannot immediately end the DACA program. See
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2018/11/08/18-15068%20Opinion.pdf.
To date the Supreme Court has not intervened in the decision to enjoin the rescission of DACA. See https://www.npr.org/2018/11/06/664649161/white-house-asks-supreme-court-to-rule-on-daca-sooner-not-later. As discussed in the most recent decision of District Judge Hanen in August 2018, all but one district court has agreed with immigrant advocates that the administration's attempt to rescind DACA should not be permitted to go forward. See https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Texas2-v-US-memorandum-opinion-and-order-2018-08-31.pdf.
[7] 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018).
[8] Id.
[9] The unilateral referral of cases to the AG by the AG has not been limited only to asylum cases but also encompasses other areas involved with immigration court procedures. See, e.g., Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018); Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018), Matter of E-F-H-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. 2018), and others.
[10] It should be mentioned at this point that under the Board's own precedent decision, W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2018), the exact delineation of the PSG is required and cannot be changed on appeal before the BIA. Id. Therefore, applying W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, AG Sessions himself should not have been allowed to change the PSG when under the Board's own precedent litigants are not allowed to modify or even clarify their PSGs on appeal. (Note, the author of this article is a co-counsel in W-Y-C- & H-O-B- now pending in the Fifth Circuit).
[12] See, e.g., https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/7/13/matter-of-a-b-being-misapplied-by-eoir-dhs; https://www.aila.org/infonet/former-chairman-bia-paul-w-schmidts-speech.
[13] See TRAC, Syracuse University, statistics
[14] Grace v. Whitaker, No. 18-cv01853 at 11 (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2018).
[15] See Penn State Law's excellent summary of the decision available at https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdfs/Immigrants/Grace%20v.%20Whitaker.pdf
[17] https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/7/13/matter-of-a-b-being-misapplied-by-eoir-dhs;
[18] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/122118zr_986b.pdf
[19] https://www.newsweek.com/h-1b-visa-program-trump-administration-824688
[23] https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/trumps-attacks-legal-immigration-system-explained
(citing https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/BAHA/h-1b-2007-2017-trend-tables-12.19.17.pdf).
[24] Id. (citing https://www.propublica.org/article/authorities-can-now-deny-visa-and-green-card-applications-without-giving-applicants-a-chance-to-fix-errors).
[26] https://workpermit.com/news/l1-visa-canadians-and-others-more-difficult-under-trump-20181125
[28] https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterbendorsamuel/2018/11/12/impacts-from-changing-administrative-rule-for-h-1b-and-l1-work-visas/#4fb64c3855b1
[32] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2018/2018-08-09-PM-602-1060.1-Accrual-of-Unlawful-Presence-and-F-J-and-M-Nonimmigrants.pdf
[33] https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-changing-policy-accrued-unlawful-presence-nonimmigrant-students-and-exchange-visitors
[34] INA 212(a)(4)(A).
[35] Geoffrey A. Hoffman, Immigration Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support) and Efforts to Collect Damages as Support Obligations Against Divorced Spouses – What Practitioners Need to Know, FLORIDA BAR JOURNAL (October 2009).
[36] See https://www.ilrc.org/public-charge
[39] ILRC comments to proposed rule, p. 5, Part C, available at
https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/ilrc_pub_charge_comment-20181206.pdf
[42] See https://cliniclegal.org/
[43] Another example concerns the Supreme Court's decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. ___ (2018).The decision related to the stop time rule and deficient NTAs that lacked the required information about time and date under INA 240. Currently, there are many cases pending in the circuit courts seeking to litigate the scope of Pereira because it also applied to subject matter jurisdiction. The author of this Article saw a need for coordination among private attorneys and law school clinics. As a result, a brief bank was created and working group that serves a place for exchange of ideas and notice regarding the various efforts of attorneys litigating Pereira issues in almost every circuit.
[44] 5 USC 706(1).
[46] The government may and often does argue that federal lawsuits are barred by various jurisdiction-limiting provisions, generally found within INA 242. While there are various provisions within this subsection, the motions to dismiss by the government which inevitably filed should be responded to and vigorously opposed. While the government may argue for limiting the federal court's jurisdiction, there is still ample argument in favor of judicial review over immigration actions. See, e.g. Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook (16th ed. AILA) at 1875 (strong presumption of review) and Chapter 10, generally.
[47] Attorneys should also be aware to seek appropriate attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which is available to those who are the prevailing party and where the government's position was not substantially justified. See The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) cite is 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) & 5 U.S.C. § 504 et seq.
← Administrative Law SSRN Reading List, December 2018 Edition D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: The Use of Philosophers by the D.C. Circuit →
2 thoughts on "How Trump Era Immigration Enforcement Violates the Law, by Geoffrey A. Hoffman"
William M Yeatman January 25, 2019 at 8:38 pm
This is fantastic. If you already don't, you should get to know my Cato colleagues Alex Nowrasteh & David Bier. Best, will
Mike Jones January 29, 2019 at 6:08 am
Your analysis on the USCIS March 2018 memorandum for H-1B visas seems incomplete. While the memorandum may have increased the difficulty somewhat, this is a response to outsourcing companies who lose sight of their personnel through numerous contractual agreements, sometimes with more than four or more intermediate companies. Oftentimes once a worker is placed with the final client, these companies sort of change to autopilot and almost lose all contact with the worker. This is not how this visa was intended to be used. If we blindly oppose anything from the current administration without considering the other perspective, it is a disservice. Just a thought.
Leave a Reply to William M Yeatman Cancel reply


Alan Marsh: Are you wasting my time, Bourdette? Are you wasting my time?
Bourdette: If they find out I'm talking to you, they'll... they'll kill me.
Alan Marsh: Tell me how it works.
Nicholas Cage has participated in ambivalent movies, but this one is definitely among the better ones. And he is pleasantly complemented by Guy Pearce whose character is controversial to the end. Development of events and characters is logical, and viewers have - similar to various characters - constant dilemmas what kind of standpoint to take up with, as the background issue is serious, and good intentions get out of control quite fast. I felt that it must be horrible if you can trust nobody during peacetime.
Recommended to all desiring to spend a thrilling time in front of TV or at the cinema.


text:
American Airlines apologizes to cancer survivor over sweatshirt with expletive
general issued an apology to a woman who was told to cover up a sweatshirt that said "f—k cancer."
The airline apologized to Roslyn Singleton, a two-time cancer survivor from North Carolina, who says she was told before boarding her flight to Charlotte earlier this week the clothing item violated American's policy for having "inappropriate language."
American Airlines issued an apology to a woman who was told to cover up a sweatshirt that said "f—k cancer." (iStock)
"Our team has reached out to learn more about Ms. Singleton's experience, offer our apologies and reaffirm our support for her efforts to fight cancer," the airline said in a statement to FOX News.
Singleton's battle with cancer was revealed on "The Ellen Show" last year in a segment in which her husband serenades her before she underwent surgery for brain cancer. Singleton spoke to talk show how Ellen DeGeneres about her symptoms that led to her diagnosis and the recovery process.
AIRLINE MAKES CANCER SURVIVOR COVER-UP SWEATSHIRT WITH MESSAGE CHAMPIONING RECOVERY
Singleton defended herself after being asked to see the airline's company policy and said she felt humiliated because an airline employee at Los Angeles International Airport allegedly pointed at her while she was waiting in line at the airport before boarding the flight, according to WSOC-TV. Singleton said she complied after an employee asked her to cover up the sweatshirt and said she was approached a second time about the incident.
"I don't love cancer," she told WSOC-TV. "I don't respect it, and my sweatshirt gave my exact sentiments on something that has tried to kill me twice."
Singleton went on to detail the incident on social media.
"Wow… @americanair Let me apologize to you publicly for having such a strong stance on Cancer. I hope other cancer survivors and fighters don't go through this!! Never AGAIN….May i add i was NEVER SHOWN THIS IN WRITING @americanair #sorryihadcancer #mybadamericanairlines ," Singleton captioned a video of herself in the sweatshirt following the incident at Los Angeles International Airport on Instagram.
FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK FOR MORE FOX LIFESTYLE NEWS
Singleton's Instagram page was flooded with words of support from fellow survivors.
"That is the motto of every cancer survivor and for people that have lost someone to cancer!!" one user wrote.
The airline said its policies "prohibit clothing that displays offensive statements and inappropriate language from being worn on board" however, it said that during this incident "our team should have taken the broader context of the message displayed on the customer's shirt into consideration when explaining our policies."
Previous article1 in 10 coronavirus survivors deal with lingering symptoms months after mild illness, study finds
Next articleBiden DOJ slow to act on opioid crisis despite AG Garland saying it should be 'high priority'

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


As 2011 comes to a close, we are once again soliciting recommendations for top sexual stories of the year. As usual we are looking for stories from around the globe related to sexuality, culture, health, and politics from the past year. Please email us at sexuality@thesocietypages.org with your ideas (and we'll be sure to credit you as well).


Toyota is one of the world's leading car manufacturers, and it's no coincidence, either. They are widely recognized for producing some of the highest quality, and best-selling, vehicles available for sale.
Constantly maintaining your Toyota is a necessary process if you want to avoid experiencing a breakdown. Toyota dealerships offer maintenance service, but you never know what quality of care you will receive at a dealership. At K&M Auto Service, you will always get the best quality of care possible.
Our staff of certified mechanics are up-to-speed on all of the latest gadgets and technology, and they take great care when analyzing and repairing your Toyota. Our staff treats every vehicle as if it were their own, and they work hard to prolong the life of your Toyota.
K&M Auto Service is a family-owned and operated establishment, and we take great pride in the services we offer. Our shop is located in Portland, OR, but we are happy to serve anyone from the metro area including the communities of Milwaukie, Sunnyside, Gladstone, Gresham, Woodstock and surrounding areas.
We hope that we will have the chance to be your trusted Toyota auto repair shop, just call us today to schedule a service appointment. Click here to contact us, or call our 2820 SE 50th Ave shop at (503) 235-1485, or our 1561 SE 122nd Ave at (503) 257-9667.
Toyota first ventured into automobile manufacturing way back in 1933. A year after it was founded, Toyota produced its first engine. Now Toyota is the world's 12th biggest company based on revenue, and the third largest automaker.
During WWII, Toyota made trucks for the Japanese military. After the war, the company focused on making trucks and buses as the demand for passenger cars just wasn't there yet. After Toyota had produced a few models for passenger vehicles, they decided to test the international market. In 1957, Toyota began importing vehicles to the U.S., but with mixed results. By the early 1970's, however, the gas crisis would force Americans to buy smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles, and Toyota was there to meet the demand. The Corolla soon became the best-selling compact car in America.
Toyota exploded in popularity between the 1970's and now. The Prius is the best-selling hybrid in the world, and Toyota plans to continue developing hybrid and electric vehicles.
Toyota trucks are among the most reliable on the road. But eventually all vehicles need repairs. When you do make sure you think of K&M Auto Service.


text:
Q: Picasso Singleton Usage I am using Picasso in my app.
First, I only use the format below:
Picasso.with(context)....into(imgView);

This way I assume I use Picasso as a singleton. Do I?
Second, I want to use setIndicatorsEnabled. However it cannot be added to the format above since it is not a static method. Is there any way to use this function in the format above?
Third, if I need to create a custom instance using Picasso.Builder(...).build() in order to use setIndicatorsEnabled, what is the best way to achieve singleton usage across the activities of the app?

A: Here is a good way to implement a singleton Picasso class
public class ImageHandler {

    private static Picasso instance;

    public static Picasso getSharedInstance(Context context)
    {
        if(instance == null)
        {
            instance = new Picasso.Builder(context).executor(Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor()).memoryCache(Cache.NONE).indicatorsEnabled(true).build();
        }
        return instance;
    }
}

And then an implementation of it in code would be as follows:
    ImageHandler.getSharedInstance(getApplicationContext()).load(imString).skipMemoryCache().resize(width, height).into(image, new Callback() {
        @Override
        public void onSuccess() {
            layout.setVisibility(View.VISIBLE);
        }

        @Override
        public void onError() {

        }
    });

Note that you don't have to implement the callbacks if not necessary

A: Yes you assume Picasso is a singleton instance when you use Picasso.with(context)....
to use set indicators enabled
Picasso mPicasso = Picasso.with(context);
mPicasso.setIndicatorsEnabled(true);
mPicasso....load().into(imageView);

if you use the builder you should create your own singleton to hold your instance of Picasso and clean it up when your done. Do not use builder every time that you use picasso because it creates a new instance. I believe that Picasso.with(context) just takes your context and calls getApplicationContext and stores a singleton instance of picasso with the application context.

A: The current method seems to be to use setSingletonInstance
Run this in you application create:
Picasso.setSingletonInstance(Picasso.Builder(context).build()

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
VENICE TO dubrovnik
Dalmatian Sunshine: Venice to Dubrovnik
12 Days: Venice, Bled, Ljubljana, Postojna Cave, Zagreb, Plitvice Lakes, Split and Dubrovnik
Venice to Dubrovnik 2022
VENICE: Walking tour includes views of the Bell Tower and a boat ride to Murano Island
POSTOJNA: Miniature electric train ride through Postojna Caves
BLED: Tour of Bled Castle of amazing views of Lake Bled followed by boat tour
LJUBLJANA: Walking tour highlights Central Market, Three Bridges and more
ZAGREB: Morning guided tour featuring St. Mark's Church and the Cathedral
PLITVICE LAKE: Explore this national park with breathtaking views of the lakes
SPLIT: Sightseeing tour features Jupiter's Temple and Diocletian Palace
DUBROVNIK: Spectacular views of the Adriatic coast with stops at Rector's Palace and Franciscan Monastery
Arrival transfer from Venice airport
Departure transfer to Dubrovnik airport
12 day/11 night guided tours
Welcome dinner in Venice (glass of wine, beer or soft drink)
1 lunch and 4 dinners (coffee or tea included)
Hotel taxes and service taxes
VENICE: Hotel Carlton Grand Canal or similar
BLED: Hotel Park or similar
ZAGREB: Hotel Sheraton or similar
PLITVICE: Hotel Jezero or similar
SPLIT: Hotel Briig or similar
DUBROVNIK: Hotel Valamar Lacroma / Valamar Argosy or similar
Day 1, arrival Venice, Tuesday (D)
Welcome to Venice! You will be met at the airport and transferred to your hotel. Later, gather for a Welcome Dinner with your traveling companions.
Day 2, in Venice, Wednesday (B)
We begin our exploration of Venice at St. Mark's Square with a walking tour which includes visits to the St. Mark's Basilica and the Doge's Palace. We take in the amazing views of the Bell Tower and the Bridge of Sighs. We also take a boat ride to Murano Island, famous for its artistic glassware. Visit a glassblowing factory, where you will watch a demonstration of traditional Venetian glassblowing by master craftsmen. The balance of the day is at leisure to enjoy Venice on your own or join an optional tour.
Optional Tour: Gondola Serenade with Aperol Spritz Venetial style drink
Day 3, to Postojna and Bled, Thursday (B, D)
In the morning drive across the border into Slovenia with stop in Postojna Cave, one of the largest caves in Europe. Tour this fantastic subterranean world by miniature electric train. Afterwards continue to Bled, beautifully set in the Julian Alps.
Day 4, in Bled, Friday (B)
An Alpine lake surrounded by high peaks, Bled was "discovered" by travelers in the middle of the 19th century. Since then, a small town of hotels, villas, and restaurants has developed around the lake, turning Bled into a lively, all-seasons resort. A sightseeing tour features the charming town and the lakeshore and visit to imposing Bled Castle, perched on a cliff high above the lake. Continue to the small island in the middle of the lake Bled with Pletna boat. Afternoon free or join optional tour dinner at country inn and live music.
Day 5, to Ljubljana and Zagreb, Saturday (B, D)
Leave the mountains and head to Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia. See the most significant sights of the old city center on a walking tour. Highlights include the picturesque open-air Central Market, the Three Bridges, Baroque Town Hall, and Robba's Fountain. Then, continue to Zagreb, Croatia's capital city.
Day 6, in Zagreb, Sunday (B)
This morning enjoy a city tour featuring the historic Upper Town, St. Mark's Church, St. Catherine's Church, the Cathedral, Parliament and Government Palace. The rest of the day is at leisure to explore the winding streets of the old town or take an optional excursion to see the countryside.
Day 7, from Zagreb to Plitvice Lakes, Monday (B, D)
Travel to spectacular Plitvice Lakes National Park. Have your camera ready as you take a walking tour around several of the lower lakes. Enjoy the breathtaking scenery of this natural wonder of 16 terraced lakes surrounded by thickly wooded mountains and lush vegetation. The rest of the day is at leisure to explore more on your own. Later, gather for a dinner served at our hotel and overnight.
Day 8, to Trogir and Split, Tuesday (B)
After breakfast, head to Trogir, the center of artistic activities. Scholars from around the world gather here to study and paint. Continue traveling along the spectacular Adriatic coast, passing by old fishing villages and new resorts, to the city of Split. A city tour featuring the historic inner city, built around the Roman Emperor Diocletian's Palace, a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage site. Finally, see the remnants of Split's Roman heritage, its Renaissance and Gothic structures, Jupiter's Temple, the Peristyle and the Cathedral. The reminder of the day is at leisure.
Day 9, in Split, Wednesday (B)
Day at leisure or you can join optional tour to Hvar Island:
We board the ferry in Split and set sail for Hvar. The town of Hvar has a unique cultural and historical heritage, plus a centuries-old tradition in tourism. A walking tour includes views of the 17th century theatre, the 13th century Arsenal, and the central town square with the Cathedral. You will visit the Franciscan Monastery, famous for its collection of old art masters, including "Ingoli´s Last Supper˝.
Afterward, we travel to Stari Grad for some wine tasting. A ferry returns us to Split.
Optional Tour: Visit Hvar Island
Day 10, to Dubrovnik, Thursday (B, L)
Finally, travel to Dubrovnik, with its picturesque setting on the stunning Adriatic coast.
A walking tour shows you the highlights of Old Dubrovnik. See the Rector's Palace, Bell Tower Clock, Orlando's Column and Sponza Palace. Then it's on to see the Dominican Monastery and Franciscan Monastery with its Pharmacy, one of the oldest in the world. The rest of the day is at leisure to explore on your own, shop, stroll along the water's edge, or simply relax and delight in your superbly scenic surroundings.
Day 11, in Dubrovnik, Friday (B, D)
At leisure or you can join optional tour to Montenegro
Travel to the Republic of Montenegro. Head to the mouth of the beautiful Bay of Kotor, the longest and deepest fjord in Southern Europe. Enjoy a boat ride to Our Lady of the Rocks, one of two islets off the coast of Perast. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest building on the islet, with a museum attached to it. Upon return to the coast, we will stop in Perast, an old charming coastal town. Visit city of Kotor before returning to Dubrovnik.
Later, gather for a Farewell Dinner.
Day 12, departure, Saturday (B)
After breakfast, you will be transferred to the airport for your departure flight.


Why I became a sleep coach.
I had a friend who was miserably sleep deprived because her young 1 year old child was miserably sleep deprived. Neither of them was getting enough sleep. Through sleep coaching, her world changed. She learned what pieces to the sleep puzzle her 1 year old had been missing and once put in place, both their worlds changed. Once the baby was sleeping, so was my friend. They both became happy and adjusted. I was amazed at the power of a good night's sleep. This was the perfect career for me. I am passionate about all things family and sleep is a big part of the family puzzle.


Universal joint cross (u j crosses) and bearing cups are one forged piece, especially prepared for heavy duty applications. These universal joint cross and automobile universal joint cross are made from case carburized alloy steel in precision dimensions. Finest quality needles are applied to ensure extra long life. Apart from this, proper oil sealing is done to avoid lubricant losses and penetration of impurities into the bearings. The UJ crosses can work under proper load with safe operation and smooth running without vibrations.
U.J. crosses & bearings cups are manufactured using case carburising alloy steel. Having precision dimensions, these U.J. crosses & bearings cups are designed to provide long service life even in highly demanding applications.
A wide range of CNC turned shaft components is offered in finest materials as per SAE specifications. These shaft components are produced in OEM and aftermarket specifications, according to the requirements of the customers.
OEM and aftermarket automobile products in this range are manufactured by forging. This range includes automotive components like Tie Rod Ends, Ball Joints, Pitman Arms, Idler Arms etc. Sheller is fully equipped to meet specific requirement of customers for any type of forged components. Developed using modern technologies, the forged products are available in various profiles like carbon steel, alloy steel, stainless steel, etc. Besides this, the weight is ranging form grams to kilograms suiting clients' needs.


text:
Premier League Club Fulham FC Expands Playermaker Wearable to Academy
By Andrew Cohen 5.28.2022
English soccer club Fulham FC is expanding use of Playermaker's performance-tracking device to be worn by youth players across the team's academy program. The Playermaker wearable has sensors that strap onto a player's cleats to track metrics such as acceleration, kick velocity, time on the ball and top speed.
Playermaker separates data from a player's left and right foot, and the findings will help create individualized training and recovery plans for academy players. Fulham, which played in the second-tier English Football League last season but will play in the 2022-23 Premier League season, will also provide Playermaker units for the Fulham FC Foundation. The program hosts free soccer sessions in South West London for youth from refugee backgrounds. Fulham is owned by Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan.
More than 150 professional and college teams use Playermaker, including Premier League clubs Crystal Palace and Manchester City and MLS clubs such as Atlanta United and LA Galaxy. The startup raised a $10 million Series B in 2019, and its investors include former Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger, who now serves as FIFA's chief of global football development.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/05/28/Technology/premier-league-club-fulham-fc-playermaker-wearable-academy.aspx


text:
Sciapus aequalis är en tvåvingeart som beskrevs av Becker 1922. Sciapus aequalis ingår i släktet Sciapus och familjen styltflugor. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Styltflugor
aequalis

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Detecting rotated/inverted images with PDFBox I've got some PDFs which have images that are rotated and inverted. Sample of the image:

The page object itself has no rotation instructions but it appears they may be using the cm operator in the content stream to perform the transformation for the rendered PDF:
...snip...
q
  0.05 0 0 -0.05 0 768 cm
  q
    0 0 11880 15360 re
    W*
    n
    /GS0 gs
    1 J
    [ ] 0 d
    2 w
    0 0 0 RG
    /GS0 gs
    1 1 1 rg
    /GS0 gs
    1 1 1 rg
    /GS0 gs
    1 J
    [ ] 0 d
    2 w
    0 0 0 RG
    q
      11865 0 0 15360 0 -3 cm
      /Image1 Do
    Q
...snip...

Am I on the right track here?
We're already using PDFStreamEngine to analyze images so I thought maybe using the current graphics state would have these available:
protected class DrawObjectCounter extends OperatorProcessor {
   @Override
   public void process(Operator operator, List<COSBase> operands) throws IOException {
       System.out.println(getGraphicsState().getCurrentTransformationMatrix());
       ...snip...
   }
...snip...

The output is always:
[1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0]

Do I need to keep track of the CM operators with another OperatorProcessor or am I just not looking in the right place?

A: I had a problem in the construction of my PDFStreamEngine. I needed to register operators to perform the matrix modifications:
public PdfImageStreamEngine() {
    // pdfbox operators
    addOperator(new Save());
    addOperator(new Concatenate());
    addOperator(new Restore());
    // custom operators
    addOperator(new DrawObjectCounter());
    addOperator(new BeginInlineImageCounter());
    addOperator(new LineToCounter());
}

Once I registered the proper operator processors, the getCurrentTransformationMatrix had the correct value.


Abraham Lincoln- Gettysburg Address 19.11.1863 | EduNow!
Am 19. November 1863 hält der 16te Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, Abraham Lincoln, auf dem Friedhof von Gettysburg eine Rede, die in die Geschichte der USA eingeht. Sie ist nur 12 Sätze lang und hat Überlieferungen zufolge nur 2 Minuten gedauert.
1] Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
 But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate-we can not consecrate-we can not hallow-this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Vor 87 Jahren gründeten unsere Väter auf diesem Kontinent eine neue Nation, in Freiheit gezeugt und dem Grundsatz geweiht, dass alle Menschen gleich geschaffen sind.
Nun stehen wir in einem großen Bürgerkrieg, der eine Probe dafür ist, ob diese oder jede andere so gezeugte und solchen Grundsätzen geweihte Nation dauerhaft Bestand haben kann. Wir haben uns auf einem großen Schlachtfeld dieses Krieges versammelt. Wir sind gekommen, um einen Teil dieses Feldes jenen als letzte Ruhestätte zu weihen, die hier ihr Leben gaben, damit diese Nation leben möge. Es ist nur recht und billig, dass wir dies tun.
Doch in einem höheren Sinne können wir diesen Boden nicht weihen, können wir ihn nicht segnen, können wir ihn nicht heiligen. Die tapferen Männer, Lebende wie Tote, die hier kämpften, haben ihn weit mehr geweiht, als dass unsere schwachen Kräfte dem etwas hinzufügen oder etwas davon wegnehmen könnten. Die Welt wird wenig Notiz davon nehmen, noch sich lange an das erinnern, was wir hier sagen, aber sie kann niemals vergessen, was jene hier taten. Es ist vielmehr an uns, den Lebenden, das unvollendete Werk weiterzuführen, das diejenigen, die hier kämpften, so weit und so edelmütig vorangebracht haben. Es ist vielmehr an uns, der großen Aufgabe geweiht zu werden, die noch vor uns liegt – auf dass uns die edlen Toten mit wachsender Hingabe erfüllen für die Sache, der sie das höchste Maß an Hingabe erwiesen haben – auf dass wir hier feierlich beschließen, dass diese Toten nicht vergebens gestorben sein sollen – auf dass diese Nation, unter Gott, eine Wiedergeburt der Freiheit erleben soll – und auf dass die Regierung des Volkes, durch das Volk und für das Volk, nicht von der Erde verschwinden möge.
On November 19th 1863 Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States of America, gave his famous "Gettysburg Adress". During the dedication ceremony for the National Cemetery of Gettysburg Lincoln honored the fallen soldiers of the civil war and reminded the nation that their fight for freedom was still lasting.
Lincoln started his speech by employing a very poetic language. He uses "four score and seven" instead of "Eighty-seven". In using this expression he achieves a much more elegant and noble tone, whilst speaking about the successful Independence War, which the citizens of the young american nation fought against the British, 87 years ago. He linked the current situation he found himself in 1863 with the decisive Independence War which opened the Americans a hopeful future.
In speaking about the "new nation" growing in liberty and freedom he reminded the audience of the ideals and basis the US were founded. His flashback of 87 years is a important structural element of the speech because it opens the audience's mind for the view on their present situation. He gave hope that the people of his time would be able to reach aims as big as the victory over Britain was. It is a well chosen set up to the next paragraph.
Nevertheless he marked the civil war as a challenge. Lincoln claims the values of the young nation to be under attack. The enduring fight to defend the founding principles is a significant one. In employing the words "or any other nation" he emphasizes that such a battle is possible to be fought by any other nation willing to live in freedom and equality. He extended that the battle is of international appeal. He justified the war by creating the impression that the fighting soldiers of the North fought for a greater aim, for all nations willing to live free. He connected the victory and the winning of the battle with the surviving of the whole nation itself. He insists the nation could only endure if the battle is won.
In turning to the fallen soldiers on the field of Gettysburg he changes the view of the audience. He contrasts life and death in using the words "those who here gave their ives that this nation might live". Without choosing the words life and death, he gained the same effect by a metaphor in meaning and a parallelism in structure. Contrast, metaphor and parallelism achieve a compelling direct effect on all those present. There is so much energy in this contrast that the audience must have been fully engaged. To attain more effect Lincoln also uses consonance or alliteration within his speech applying words with the letter "F" i.e. battlefield, field, final, for and fitting. He rounded this part of the speech off in a matter of sound.
Moreover within the next section of the speech the President uses a climax when speaking about the meaning of the ground they were standing on. The triple "can not dedicate… can not consecrate … can not hallow" shows the power of a accelerating element in a public speaking. Lincoln achieved a better memorability in structuring the words as he did. The overview is as brilliant as the trinity of liberty, freedom and equality in the first paragraph. Still in reading it, it is possible to feel the powerful cadence.
Lincoln demonstrated high respect for the soldiers wether the were fallen or still discharging their duty on the battlefield. He reduces his own importance and heightens the meaning of those fighting for the Union. The alliteration "poor power" helps him to underline his request. He again uses the structural element of contrast telling the audience "the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here". Again he transfers the fighting of the Union to something larger than the US. He asserts that Mankind will never forget about their service.
As a casual remark there is to say that Lincoln was wrong at that point. His words had become a part of the cultural heritage of the US.
Telling the audience not to rest, he maintained that the battle wasn't still won. He spoke about the "unfinished work" that had to be completed. Within the last paragraph the vocabulary used by Lincoln is becoming much more poetic then in the middle part of the speech. He employs words as "dedicated, nobly, great, honored, devotion, god, birth and freedom". The effect on the listener is obviously to make him feel being part of something particular, something historic.
There are are two more contrasts to analyze. He juxtaposed "the living" with the "honored dead" as well as "these dead shall not have died in vain" with "this nation shall have a new birth of freedom". He perks up the value of their death and the value of the living. He reaches the peak of his speech turning over to the ideals of democracy. Again he employs a triple climax to emphasize the relation between the founding principles of the US, the fighting soldiers on the battlefield and the nation as a whole. The effect of this ending is tremendous. He manages to give an implicit view on democracy in future and his words seem to give all Americans just one possible single aim to fight for: the power of the people under the principles of the Union.


The bike has been well looked after due to being ex race bike. Has new clutch and engine rebuild done by previous owner unfortunately no receipts though do to being done by his race mechanic.
Selling due to personal reasons.
Hi Gumtree User, I'm interested in your "2013 ZX10R TRACK BIKE" on Gumtree. Please get in contact and let me know when I can come for an inspection. Thanks!


text:
Home > Stocks
Hong Kong-Shenzhen connect launch date announcement delayed: sources
[HONG KONG] The announcement of the launch date of the landmark Hong Kong-Shenzhen stock market link is on hold due to technical issues, putting at risk China's pledge to have the scheme ready by year-end, three sources familiar with the situation said.
Global funds and other industry participants had been expecting regulators to announce in May a launch date for the Shenzhen trading link, which will complement an existing scheme connecting Hong Kong with Shanghai.
A delay beyond August risks pushing the Shenzhen project into 2016 and would cause a setback to Chinese regulators who have been gunning for a 2015 start.
It would also potentially delay the inclusion of China's"A-shares" into global benchmark indices such as the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, as one of the key criteria for inclusion is greater access to China's stock markets.
China's currency regulator, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) and its stock market watchdog, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC), are yet to agree on how many securities will be tradable via the link-up and how to allocate existing cross-border investment quotas once the scheme is in place, the sources said.
SEE ALSO: Hong Kong exchange CEO says IPOs in city 'just keep coming'
The sources, who have been in discussions with the regulators, declined to be identified as they are not authorised to speak to media.
The Chinese regulators and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange declined to immediately comment when contacted by Reuters.
Beijing has said the Hong Kong Shenzhen stock connect scheme would be launched in the second half of the year.
The Hong Kong-Shanghai stock connect scheme was announced in April 2014 and launched in November of that year.
hong kong-shenzhen connect
hong kong-shanghai connect
hong kong exchange


fathersullivan.com: If we are faithful Jesus will come over the water to take us to the far shore.
If we are faithful Jesus will come over the water to take us to the far shore.
Jesus walked over the water to the disciples who felt they were in the grip of death. This story is a parable that tells us Jesus will rescue us from death. He will take us safely to the other shore.
In the Book of Joshua, Chapter Three we have the story of the people wanting to pass over into the Promised Land after forty years of wandering in the desert. It was springtime, and the snows from Lebanon have turned the Jordan River into a mile-wide barrier.
The people who had survived those forty years in the desert were a remnant who had proved themselves obedient. Joshua had the priests carrying the Ark of the Covenant take a stand next to the flooded Jordan. Then he had the people line up four abreast in a line back from the ark. At Joshua's command the priests carrying the ark stepped into the flooded river, and as the people followed the waters backed up, clearing the river bed.
The priests carried the ark down to the middle of the riverbed, then, they took their stand there. The long line of Israelites passed by them, mounting the shore into the Promised Land. For us in death Jesus on the cross will take the place of the priests carrying the ark. We will pass by, mounting the far shore.
The storm at night in Chapter Six of John's Gospel is a picture of our death. If we have been true to him Jesus will come, and take us to the far shore.


Kurz-Beschreibung von CDbaby: Music of transcendent beauty, conveying peace, harmony and genuine sense of light. Perfect for massage, meditation, healing and just basking in the beauty of ourselves.
Käufer, die sich für (Ray Lynch Kitaro Yanni) interessieren sollten sich dieses Album anhören.
Aryeh David has been playing the piano for 46 years), studying classical, pop and jazz.
In 1986 he began using synthesizers and exploring the use of sound and music for healing, studying for several years with renowned sound healers Don Campbell and Jonathan Goldman.
Aryeh has spoken and played at the "Spirituality and Healing" symposium in Santa Barbara, and has also used his music in hospice work, hospitals and nursing homes.
He has toured the US and Canada, sharing his music at numerous gatherings, seminars, expos and conferences.
"Aryeh David has created an album of transcendent beauty. While nearly every note was played on synthesizers, David brings such warmth and enchanting emotion to his compositions that, whenever I listen to LOVE'S WHISPER", I feel as though angels surround me. Aural cathedrals of sweeping synthesizers float the listener onto clouds of peaceful bliss, the care of the day forgotten in a moment of sublime tenderness..."
"As a therapist and director of several health institutes over the last 15 years, I am impressed by Aryeh's evocative, intimate, freeing music that can bring ecstatic flow to a yearning heart"


text:
Q: Atomics for vectors I have some OpenCL code where operation like atomic_cmpxchg is needed, but for int4 (or long2) instead of just int or long. After several tryings I didn't manage to create it, and googling gave nothing useful to me. My code now looks like this:
int4 atomicCAS(__global int4 *place, int4 new_val)
{
    int4 old = *place;
    if (atomic_cmpxchg((int*)place, 0, new_val.x) == 0)
    {
        *place = new_val;
    }
    return old;
}

It checks that the place contains zero vector and uses some additional knowledge about the data: in a non-zero int4 vector all components are non-zero.
However, this code doesn't work and I can't get it working: there seems to be no way to convert int4* to int*, which points to the first (or any other) component of the vector.
UPD:
And, of course, I've also interested in a general way to do this, without such knowledge about the data.
UPD2:
First published code isn't atomic. Corrected version (it works, first answer used):
typedef union
{
    int4 m_int4;
    int m_ints[4];
} int4ints;

int4 atomicCAS(__global int4ints *p, int4 new_val)
{
    int4 old;

    if (atomic_cmpxchg(&p->m_ints[0], 0, new_val.x) == 0)
    {
        p->m_int4 = new_val;
        old = 0;
    } else
    {
        old = p->m_int4;
    }
    return old;
}

A: Instead of casting, you could use a union, for example:

typedef struct
{
        union
        {
                int4 m_vecInt;
                int m_ints[4];
         }
} MyIntCastingType;

int4 atomicCAS(__global MyIntCastingType *place, int4 new_val)
{
    int4 old = place->m_vecInt;
    if (atomic_cmpxchg(&place->m_ints[0], 0, new_val.x) == 0)
    {
        place->m_vecInt = new_val;
    }
}


I would first like to start off by greeting those who visit this page, and I do hope that you the reader shall enjoy the truthful information on this website. Well who am I? My name is Sami Zaatari, some people may already know me from my work on the Answering-Christianity website, however so I do not agree with everything on Answering-Christianity and not every view and writing on the AC website reflects my own view or belief, but these are very limited to only a few cases, and it is the Sunnah to have disagreements with each other. As you may already know I am a Muslim, and a very proud Muslim, I say without a doubt that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad is his final messenger. I do not comprimise on my faith nor on my God, if I see a lie I will expose it, and that is what this site is all about, refuting the lies against Islam. At the same time this site also seeks to raise some objections against Christianity, and the Bible. But we do not do this as a result of hate or to simply insult, no we do this to seek the truth and so that we may all come to an understanding of each other and be guided to the straight path, and that is what we all want.
I do not hate Christians, and I have many Christian friends, so I hope our Christian readers will not come to this site thinking that this site is meant to personally attack or insult them. I simply call upon our Christian readers to read the information that is being presented before them with an open mind, not holding any biasness nor irrationality, since that will be of no use to any of us. I am not demanding that Christians accept Islam, nor am I demanding that Christians leave Christianity, I am not a missionary as some call me, if you choose to be a Christian that is fine with me, I will not hold it against you. All I ask is that you read the information being put before you with an honest heart, and an open heart, and whatever choice you make is yours, and that is all I ask for.
And may we all be guided! Ameen!