USCIS Provides Citizenship Test Study Guides In Spanish
7:39 PM 10/05/2015
Immigrants looking to become naturalized U.S. citizens can now study for the civics portion of the test in Spanish, courtesy of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Aspiring citizens can find study sheets, flash cards and audio tools in Spanish at USCIS.gov to help them prepare for the 100-question civics test, which must be taken in English. “Prepare for your naturalization test – take our interactive Quizzes in Spanish!” a separate October USCIS blog post promoting the material says. (RELATED: Activists Unite To Turn Illegal Immigrants Into Democratic Voters)
Complete interactive tests in Spanish and other languages are on the way.
The Obama administration is in the midst of a massive push to market citizenship to immigrants and refugees ahead of the 2016 election. The White House Task Force on New Americans, created by executive order in 2014, is behind a series of new initiatives aimed at ensuring they have the tools, support and encouragement they need to apply for citizenship.
USCIS launched a Spanish Facebook page and a stand-alone Spanish blog in July. “USCIS is strengthening its commitment to the Spanish-speaking community,” said a statement announcing the launch. (RELATED: USCIS Is Marketing Citizenship To Fight Terror)
The agency also recently partnered with a number of major cities, including New York and Boston, to promote citizenship. USCIS will provide training about the naturalization process to librarians and city officials, so they can help immigrants apply. Boston Public Library branches established “Citizenshp Corners” to ensure easy access to preparation materials.
USCIS told a Senate subcommittee in September its citizenship promotion efforts will help blunt the threat of homegrown terrorism.
Obama launched a multilingual public awareness campaign in September to encourage immigrants and refugees to sign up for citizenship and to build a volunteer support team by partnering with local communities.
“If you’re eligible, commit to becoming a citizen today,” Obama said in a video kicking off the campaign.
ROSEBURG — Two friends, two coffees, two different opinions.
As Lula Foley and Kimberly Roberts met outside a Starbucks in Roseburg on Tuesday morning, the topic of President Obama’s visit on Friday came up between friends.
“I think it’s a good idea that he comes,” Foley said.
“You do?” Roberts responded. “I don’t know, I just don’t.”
Foley, originally from Colombia in South America, has lived in Roseburg for 25 years. The youngest of her three sons is enrolled at Umpqua Community College, but attends class only three days a week — Thursday, when a shooter killed nine people and wounded 10 others on campus, was one of his days off.
Foley said she is experiencing survivor’s guilt, and wants to believe that the president’s visit can make a difference.
“I hope so, that this will spark change, because if not, this is going to be so common that the president is not even going to bother anymore to show up, and nobody’s going to bother to say anything at all,” she said.
“It’s going to happen in another place because these people (shooters who kill innocent victims) are mentally ill people, and that’s not going anywhere,” she said.
But Roberts said she feels that if more people had carried guns on the day the killer came to campus, someone could have stopped him before he took nine lives.
“If they take away all the guns, then that doesn’t solve anything,” Roberts said. “But it’s one of those things. Something needs to change but I think it’s more of a mental health issue, and education and family values, than gun control.”
Roberts likened the situation to driving on a street that you know is regularly patrolled by police.
“You drive slower because you know there might be a cop on that street,” she said. “He may be hidden somewhere and you don’t want to get a ticket, so you automatically drive the speed limit and you drive slower. So if you start taking away all the guns, what is going to prevent people from not shooting? Because you know there’s no one there to fight against them.”
“We do not want
him to come”
In an unscientific sampling of Roseburg area residents on Tuesday, more sided with Roberts’ views than with Foley’s.
Immediately after Thursday’s shooting, Obama repeated a call for more gun control. That did not sit well with some Roseburg area residents.
“We do not want him to come, and the veterans don’t want him to come,” asserted Patti Sciapiti, who said that her husband is involved with the American Legion in Roseburg.
“I don’t want him here because I don’t think it was proper for him to talk about gun control when the tragedy was just happening,” Sciapiti said from the parking lot at Mercy Medical Center. “He politicized it; he even said he politicized it. That’s just not right. … He’s not welcome.”
One man who said he is a military veteran and provided only his first name, Dave, said he doesn’t plan to try to see Obama on the visit, calling him “a jerk.”
“They have laws on the books now that cover gun control,” he said. “They don’t need any more because they already have them. All they got to do is enforce them.”
The views in Roseburg echo the political stalemate that has set in over gun control. A new poll conducted by Morning Consult, a Washington, D.C., publication for business and political insiders, shows that while a broad cross-section of voters nationwide want to see stricter gun control measures in the wake of the UCC shooting, few believe any gun control measures are likely to pass in the near future.
James Wyatt, Morning Consult’s director of polling, said, “Democrats and independents are much more likely to support new controls, while Republicans — especially Republican men — are the most vocal opponents.”
No public event
In 2012, Douglas County residents favored GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney over Obama 61 percent to 34 percent.
The county has 25,751 registered Republican voters and 16,474 registered Democrats, according to the county elections office.
Obama plans to visit Roseburg on Friday during a four-day West Coast visit that had already been scheduled. He is not holding a public event, but rather plans to meet privately with the families of those killed, the White House said.
Douglas County resident Sid Hohbein on Tuesday said he is neither “an Obama fan” nor a “gun person” and is ambivalent about the president’s visit.
“That shooting was a bad thing, but I don’t know how you can stop it. There’s going to be more of them,” he said. “There’s too many guns in the world. You can’t stop it.”
Others, including Roseburg resident Chanty Lytsell, offered conditional support for Obama’s visit. Lytsell, who also stopped by at the Starbucks coffee shop, said she doesn’t object to the president showing up to offer his support to grieving families. But if he is coming to start a political debate, she said, “Don’t bother.”
“I can see that he’s coming here maybe because of the fact that he wants to be supportive of our city. But it doesn’t really feel that way,” Lytsell said. “I feel like it’s another political scheme for him. Our town has gone through a lot already and I don’t think we need the president here for his support.
“We support each other as a community and that’s what’s important in our community and we need our time to grieve,” she said. “We don’t need to listen to what his views are on gun control. That is not what we need to talk about right now.”
City releases statement
in support of visit
The impression that many in Roseburg don’t welcome Obama’s visit — including some representing themselves as community leaders — prompted city officials on Tuesday to release a statement in support of the president.
“We wish to be clear that Mayor (Larry) Rich, City Council President (Tom) Ryan and the Roseburg City Council welcome the president to Roseburg and will extend him every courtesy,” the statement said.
Rod Cotton, a lifelong resident of Roseburg, has lived in the neighborhood directly across from the UCC campus for the last 25 years. He said he doesn’t mind if the president comes to the community — an opinion different from many of his friends — but hopes Obama will narrow the focus of his visit.
“He is the president of the United States and there are many of his policies that I don’t agree with, but he has every right to come,” said Cotton, who describes himself as a political conservative. “There’s a lot of negative out there from folks who I don’t think really represent the community as a whole. I think he’s sincere about coming to grieve with the folks.
“I wish politics would stay out of it,” Cotton added. “I hope he comes in, grieves with the families and gives them a hug and then moves on. I have no issue with his coming. I think it’s the right thing to do.”
Roberts and Foley, the two friends who met for coffee, found some common ground in their perspectives.
Both agreed that more mental health services need to be made available to residents, and both said they feel Obama has not brought mental health issues to the forefront of the debate.
The two said they also could support stricter background checks for gun purchases if they include reviewing a prospective gun buyer’s history for “detrimental” health concerns, such as schizophrenia.
Still, Roberts — who attends UCC in the viticulture and wine marketing program but was not on campus when the shooting occurred — said she feels the president misstepped by politicizing the issue last week.
“He turned it into such a controversy and that’s not very intelligent because this community is full of a lot of gun-carrying people,” she said. “People are hunters, that’s how they survive, that’s how they live.”
But Foley said she feels that the president can’t win.
“I feel like no matter what he says, he’s always in trouble,” Foley said. “If he didn’t mention gun control, people would say, ‘I can’t believe it, he didn’t say anything.’ ”
An employee at the tech company that maintained Hillary Clinton’s homemade email server was concerned that instructions from a Clinton-linked company would have the tech firm “covering up some shaddy [sic] shit,” according to emails obtained by Senate investigators.
Employees at Denver-based Platte River Networks in a mid-August email chain were trying to find records that showed that Clinton Executive Service Corp., the company paying the Platte River bill, had instructed them to reduce the length of time backups of Clinton’s emails were kept.
“Any chance you found an old email with their directive to cut the backup back in Oct-Feb,” one Platte River employee asked another, according to excerpts of the emails included in a Monday letter from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). “I know they had you cut it once in Oct-Nov, then again to 30day in Feb-ish.”
Such a record, the employee said, would be “golden,” and would clear the company of outside criticism and point back to Clinton Executive Service Corp., which “appears to be a Clinton family company,” according to the Johnson letter.
“Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy shit,” the employee continued. “I just think if we have it in writing that they told us to cut the backups, and we can go public saying we have had backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30 days, it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better.”
McClatchy first reported on the Johnson letter.
In December 2014, Clinton turned over to the State Department about half of her 60,000-plus emails that spanned her time in office as secretary of state. The other 30,000, she said, were “personal” in nature. She said she deleted them.
Republicans and outside groups suing the State Department for documents, however, have questioned whether she turned over all her work-related documents as is required by law — or if her team withheld messages that would have potentially been embarrassing to the Democratic 2016 presidential front-runner.
Her team has said they were over-inclusive in what they turned over. But just days ago, the State Department confirmed that it did not receive copies of work-related emails from the first few weeks of Clinton’s tenure, an oversight first discovered by a government watchdog.
The previously undisclosed emails between Clinton and now-retired Gen. David Petraeus raised further questions about whether her public record was complete.
The State Department, according to Tuesday court documents, wrote to Clinton’s lawyer David Kendall and asked that he confirm that Clinton did not have additional emails from the beginning of her tenure. State asked that Clinton turn over any such emails.
According to the Platte River email chain, the employees searching for directives about backing up Clinton’s email considered creative ways to find the instructions.
“Wonder how we can sneak an email in now after the fact asking them when they told us to cut the backups and have them confirm it for our records,” the employee wrote.
Footnotes in the letter say the employees believe the directives were given over the phone.
The “shaddy shit” comment was mentioned at the bottom of the Johnson letter, which otherwise focused on allegations that another Connecticut-based tech company had an offsite, cloud backup of Clinton’s emails.
The Senate Homeland panel, which is investigating the server and Platte River’s work with it, revealed that Clinton hired Connecticut-company Datto Inc. to back up her emails in case the server crashed. Platte River employees helped set up the backup device, which was supposed to back up only emails on site.
But Platte River employees in August learned that the emails were being backed up in Datto’s cloud, too, which was not in the contract.
A Platte River spokesman said they weren’t supposed to be doing the cloud backup and the client, Clinton, had never asked for such a backup.
“Datto was never supposed to have a cloud. … We specifically instructed Datto to only keep 30 days of information onsite and what they did, against our explicate instructions was to build a cloud and put this information on a cloud,” said company spokesman Andy Boian. “So I don’t know what was on the cloud because they violated the exact instruction we gave them.”
Johnson is trying to find out what happened to the information stored on the Datto cloud, particularly because some of those emails are now considered classified.
// It’s time for the Affordable Care Act to join a long list of oxymorons. Why? Because rather like “military intelligence,” “cat proof,” “government organization,” and “simple calculus,” the law better known as Obamacare turns out to be an inherent contradiction. For a sizeable part of the population, anyway.
The ACA is just not affordable to a big chunk of those it was most meant to serve: The previously uninsured. In fact, many are worse off than before, according to a new study. That fact could also unravel part of the program’s foundation, which could be a problem for healthcare insurers.
“Many of the non-poor formerly uninsured are estimated to be worse off,” than without insurance, according to a September-dated working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research titled “The Price of Responsibility: The Impact Of Health Reform On Non-Poor Uninsured.”
How so? The subsidies are not large enough to offset the cost of the insurance premiums and the fact that many previously uninsured will now have to pay part of the cost to see a doctor, the report explains. The authors reached that conclusion after reviewing data for the uninsured prior to Obamacare, including age, gender, earnings and location. Then, they married that information with health-care expenditures for the group and used it to make estimates of out-of-pocket costs before and after the law went into effect.
The group of people whom the authors highlight are the non-poor, or those ineligible for Medicaid but who maybe eligible for various subsidies for premiums or cost-sharing, depending on their income level. It turns out that the more someone earns the worse off they’ll be.
“At higher income levels, small or zero subsidies and currently modest penalties will not be enough to affect the large welfare losses that the middle class uninsured experience were they to buy coverage,” the report says. Those in good health were “consistently worse off from purchasing coverage regardless of the assumptions made,” according to estimates calculated by the researchers.
Is this the fault of healthcare insurers like Aetna, United Healthcare, Cigna, or Anthem ? Not really. It’s just the way the law is designed. Will it mess up their actuarial calculations? Probably so, because an important demographic of healthy people may simply not buy coverage.
“Most uninsured will lose and, according to our estimates, will prefer to remain uninsured at the current penalty levels for violating the individual mandate,” the report continues.
Ultimately, people will do what is in their own best interests. In this case, many individuals who realize that signing up for healthcare insurance is a losing proposition financially simply won’t do it.
In this case, it will be those with higher incomes and better health — the population insurance companies need in order for their actuarial assumptions to work.
What happens if the healthy don’t sign up? Either the insurance companies stand to take a loss because overall claims are larger than the revenue from premiums and subsidies, or they raise premiums, making it even more unlikely that the healthy will sign on.
The big question now: Who will bear the financial brunt of this problem, the people buying or the insurance companies or both?
Russia has begun bombings in Syria, and this is a good thing. Problem is, our idiotic president and his cronies don’t support Russia’s war on ISIS. Why won’t Barry Obama support Putin? This is the million dollar question. Russia has started the “Prelude” bombings in Syria, by dropping bombs on the supporters of ISIS (the Free Syrian Army), to eliminate aid to ISIS by these rogue groups. Our current administration will tell you Russia is in Syria to fight the Syrian Rebels, not ISIS, which is a complete fabrication of the truth. Russia stepped up to the plate, unlike our cowardly president, in the war against Islamic Terrorists. What should we expect from our Muslim sympathizing president? Why does Barry Obama want Assad ousted from Syria? Remember how well this has worked in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, ect. and now Barry wants to get rid of another leader of a Muslim country, that keeps his people in check. Saddam Hussien, despite his evil ways, kept his people in check. Same in Egypt with Hosni Mubarak, and Libya with Muammar Gaddafi, yet Obama and his Gang of Idiots took them out of power. Obama’s middle east policies are the very worst in history, as he puts his own leaders into place, and allows Radical Muslims to take over, and Sharia Law to flourish.
Here is what CNN (Cresent News Network) is saying about the Russian Bombings.
The CNN report also notes that the Russians have given “no geographical information” about where they planned to strike. That’s a remarkable gesture of contempt, an incredibly reckless and dangerous approach, and possibly an indication that the Russians are planning to blow up some people they think the United States would have warned.
Update, 11:00 AM EST: Further testimony that Russia isn’t primarily interested in bombing ISIS positions, and has caused significant civilian casualties with its first wave of bombings:
Some very interesting words “Russians are planning to blow up some people they think the United States would have warned.”
Of course Obama would warn these Radical Muslims, like he’s done over and over again. Putin asked Obama to have US Aircraft removed from Syria, cowardly Obama has disappeared!
If Obama was serious in the fight against Radical Islam and ISIS, this fight would have been over a long time ago!