From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #115 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, April 20 1998 Volume 02 : Number 115 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 98 10:37:22 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #81 (fwd) On Apr 19, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia April 19, 1998 #81 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------ SENATORS PROTECT FELONS It is the civic duty -- not the option, but the duty -- of every American citizen to turn in any felon they know about. So says the "Misprision of felony" law (18 USC 4). The law states: "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." Got it? If a judge can perceive that a felony that you knew about was committed, or may have been committed, and you didn't snitch, you can get a fine and up to three years in the slammer. So, it stands to reason that if you are a public official and know of the commission of a felony, the offense is that much worse. Right? Lawmakers and bureaucrats take note. Cause, this is going to get interesting to you rather soon. Anybody remember about honor and integrity anymore? Those hackneyed terms were defined somewhat like: "Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code." And we once demanded that public servants act like they have some. However, times have changed. A lot! For instance, let's apply the "Misprision" law to Congress. Article VI, clause 3 of our United States Constitution requires that Senators and Representatives take an oath of office to support the Constitution. The specific language of the oath is set by statute enacted by Congress (5 USC 3331). The exact words have changed several times since 1789. However, the Congressional Oath of Office now reads: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." Another law (2 USC 21, 25) requires that Members must be sworn before they can take their seats and/or do anything official. And, one would suppose, Members of Congress would also be promising to obey all federal laws. Yeah, yeah. That last sentence was quite a leap, I know. But, bear with me a while, cause they are American citizens, after all. I mean, the law "is" supposed to apply to them, too. So, let's pretend it really does. During the Thompson Committee hearings on campaign finance corruption a number of things came out. As the Committee report identified, there was a link between illegal communist Chinese money and campaign donations laundered into the Democratic National Committee campaign coffers. There was also (since proven in court) reports of labor union money being illegally laundered into the Clinton and Gore campaign fund and the DNC campaign war-chest. There were a couple dozen other illegal activities too, but those two will do fine for this argument. The Senate Committee held some hearings, isolated a few crimes, and then cut it off. They had to cut it off when they did. The trail was leading too close to home. That was because there were at least five Senators involved in the illegal activities. Worse yet, one of the Senate's very own was chairman of the DNC at the time and hence directly involved in overseeing all of the corruption. Anyone remember DNC Chairman Senator Christopher Dodd mouthing off on TV every night in favor of Clinton, Clinton & Gore? Clearly, Dodd was the kingpin in a conspiracy to launder illegal funds. He directed the operation. Sure he had lots of help, but that's not the point. Dodd was the chairman of the committee that broke all those laws. Every member of the United States Senate knows that Senator Christopher Dodd was deeply involved in laundering illegal money into the DNC and the Clinton and Gore campaign fund. Yet, not one United States Senator is saying a word about it. Interestingly enough, the federal government has a law that covers that, too. It's called "Accessory after the fact" (18 USC 3): "Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. "Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years." The Senate as a whole is doing its best to protect Dodd, and the other involved Senators, from prosecution. Everyone in the United States Senate knows of these laws. They also know that when they all collectively intentionally keep quiet about these breaches of the law, they are involved in a conspiracy. Yet, no Senator is speaking up. So, already we have misprision, accessory after the fact and conspiracy to obstruct justice. There's more, but we've already far exceeded our word count. The fact is, the United States Senate protects criminals. JUST ANOTHER BAD JUDGE A federal judge is calling for an investigation of Independent Council Kenneth Starr, reports the national media this week. Sounds important. That is, until we learn exactly who and why. As it turns out, the judge is none other than U.S. District Judge Henry Woods of Little Rock. Woods, a Clinton crony, was conveniently assigned to hear the fraud and conspiracy case against then Governor Jim Guy Tucker. But, he got bumped for cause. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals removed him back in March of 1996. Actually, Starr asked the appeals court to remove Woods after Woods inappropriately tossed out Tucker's initial indictment. Now, Woods says that the very same conservative groups accused of funneling money to a key government witness, like David Hale, might also have orchestrated his removal from a Whitewater case originally assigned to him. "It is important to me, and I believe to the integrity of the judicial process, to know whether any person in the justice system, including those in (Starr's office) or in the legislative branch, was aware of machinations to affect and determine what judge would preside over the ... case," Woods said in a public statement. Woods has real proof "conservatives" were giving money to David Hale, too. Caryn Mann, also of Arkansas, claims Hale received money from conservative activists working for a foundation that publishes the American Spectator magazine, and that Hale gave the magazine information about Starr's investigation. First, she said that she "saw" the transaction. Later, Mann said that her ex-boyfriend told her that. More recently, she says her 13 year old son (maybe) saw something. Mann, as it turns out, is a psychic. She's a professional shopping mall tarot card reader, among other things. She also claims to be able to control the weather, and says she used her extrasensory powers to discover where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. Oh, and she used her powers to direct American forces during the Persian Gulf War too. Just as an aside here: Evidently Mann does not wish to make public where Jimmy Hoffa rests, so we could not check her accuracy on that. We did, however, contact two military officers who were on the line in the Persian Gulf War. Among the expletives that need not be entered into record, they indicated they were quite certain that they have no knowledge of Mann offering assistance. Anyway, what we have here is another judge with a long history of abuse of power and a press that runs with any damn thing against Starr that pops up, no matter how ridiculous. Put the two together and we get some really stupid news. For example: The media even put Mann on the evening news, numerous times. If Congress would do its duty, and impeach two or three bad judges a year, Judge Wood would have been off of the bench years ago. Instead, Congress allows his ilk to wield continued power over an unsuspecting population having honest business before the courts. LET'S FORCE THE ISSUE It's time to make some noise, folks. Congress has had its two commissions and some hearings. There is no doubt. The United States tax code is all screwed up and the Internal Revenue Service is so far afield of the Constitution that they act like the Gestapo. Good news, though. As it turns out, not even the nation's chief tax writer can figure out the income tax law. As the Washington Times reported in an April 15 editorial: "Bill Archer, the Ways and Means chairman who has always done his own taxes broke down this year and resorted to tax software to prepare his return. It still took him two full days to complete. 'I was amazed,' he told The Washington Post last month. 'Even I didn't realize how complicated the tax code is until I went through that interview process that tax software uses to make sure it has everything set up correctly.' If the man whose committee writes the nation's tax laws finds them complex, it's not hard to imagine how befuddled they leave everyone else." Members of Congress and staff, it should be noted, have their income tax forms prepared free by the IRS. Unlike the way the IRS treats the rest of America, they want to insure that the people on the Hill get every penny that's possible returned to them. Meanwhile, the IRS is using SWAT teams to kick old folks out of their lifelong homes. They are still snooping (violating the Fourth Amendment) on every transaction made by every American citizen. They are still conducting political punishment audits on dozens of groups and citizens throughout the country. They still feel free to "take" anything from any person for any reason without first bothering to take that person to court. And, they still schedule audits on American citizens for no particular reason, other than that they are paid to do audits. No Constitutional protections are available to Americans hounded by the IRS. The IRS is, in fact, a law unto itself; a thing far afield of the American rule of law. Their actions are not just un-Constitutional, they are also un-American. Congress made that and a lot more possible. In fact, wander over to the Alert Global Media web page at: http://www.moneylaundering.com/, and click on the Suspicious Activity page to see just exactly how bad things have become. Alert Global Media lists a whole slew of legal activities that can immediately trigger an investigation by the IRS. Worse, Congress actually passed laws that force banks and businesses to inform the IRS when you are using your own money in certain ways. Then, go check out the federal government's Office of Electronic Technology's web page and see what Al Gore and Hillary have in store for the American public. Find that at: http://policyworks.gov/org/main/mt/homepage/mtc/smartgov/cards/cards.htm, This is an election year. Every Member of the House and one-third of the Senate is running. They want to stay in office, but we can remove them. Congress created this IRS mess. Congress can uncreate this IRS mess. It is our job to force the issue. So, how about we voters make a deal with those in Congress running for reelection? Here's the deal: Either Congress immediately abolishes the IRS; or, Congress immediately passes a bill forcing the IRS to exactly obey the Bill of Rights as written; or, all of us will work to see that no incumbent is reelected. That is a very simple deal, easily understandable by all. Congress will not have time to put a new taxing system in place this year. They do, however, have plenty of time to pass a bill clearly stating that the IRS must honor the Bill of Rights, and at the same time take away all those silly loophole excuses about civil and administrative law. Thereafter, when an IRS agent wants to snoop in a citizen's private affairs, they will have to first get a warrant describing exactly which records they want and why. And, if they want to take something from an American citizen, the IRS will first have to formally charge that citizen with something and prove wrongdoing to a jury in a court of law. If the Lords and Ladies of The Hill want to keep their cushy jobs, tell them they must first show us voters some action by taking care of this one little matter. They must support our Constitution, and order the IRS honor each section of it as written. Otherwise, adios. ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE ON GUN RIGHTS There has sure been a lot of hubbub about Second Amendment rights lately. We added a little to the fray too, of course. But we shouldn't have. All we did was to pile misinformation on top of more hackneyed misinformation. In other words, we were (partially) wrong. Here's a quick question for all you Constitutional scholars: Which of the enumerated powers authorized to the federal government are described in the Bill of Rights? None, of course. All powers (except tax and alcohol) given the federal government by the Constitution of the United States are listed in the body of the Constitution. The Second Amendment, then, is something else. When we have a doubt of the exact meaning of sections of the Constitution, the Supreme Court instructs that we should look to The Federalist Papers for clarification. In Cohens v. Virginia the Court said: "Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank [as a complete commentary on the Constitution], and the part its authors performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed." Since then, the Federalist Papers have been quoted liberally as an authority in many Court opinions. In The Federalist #84, Alexander Hamilton gives his opinion on why a Bill of Rights was not really needed: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?" Indeed. Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? And, there is no power to regulate private firearms. Yet, many people wanted this declaration of rights added to the Constitution. The promise to do so was made so as to get the Constitution ratified. And the rest is history. It is also enlightening to read what the Representative from Virginia, James Madison, said to the first House of Representatives as he proposed the Bill of Rights. Here is part of that speech: "It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government; and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government." Got that? "The people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest." Later, he says that, "all [powers] that are not granted by the constitution are retained" by the people. If the federal government had the power to regulate personal firearms, it would be one of the powers listed in the body of the Constitution, not in the Bill of Rights. And, since there is no such power granted, the right to keep and bear arms completely and unequivocally belongs to the people. Personal arms may, however, be regulated by State government. The Second Amendment, then, is no more than a declaration that that people already have the right to keep and bear arms. So, what would the Founding Fathers say about the abuse of power by the federal government to grab guns? Alexander Hamilton gives us a pretty good idea in The Federalist No. 78: "There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." One other little point: State governments gave up a few powers when the country was formed. But, the American people did not give up any of their rights. Were the people asked to sacrifice liberty, the Constitution would never have been ratified. -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 12:01:08 -0700 From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Your mail Charles R. Norgaard wrote: I am going to ask every politician that > I know, and a few I dont, to sign the above pledge, and if they wont, I will > work hard to see that they do not succeed in the political arena. Chuck, Your pre-pledge is pretty strong medicine for politicians. I don't disagree with it, but if I was running for office, I'd have to think long and hard before signing up, knowing that by doing so I would capture the vote of the RKBA minority, but at the same time I might be foregoing the votes of a lot of the more moderate citizens whose votes I MUST HAVE to get elected. As an elected politician, I can support 2nd amendment rights quietly or loudly, either way without formally signing your pre-pledge. But if I take a zealot's stand and don't get elected, it doesn't make the slightest difference whether I support RKBA or not, does it? The voters these days don't appear to want zealots. They are afraid of them. They want moderates with mouths full of mush, so if you want to get elected, you've got to speak softly and moderately and keep your zealotry under wraps. As you press forward with this project, I have a bit of tactical advice. If you're going to actively oppose everyone who won't sign, you inherently take on the obligation to put the pre-pledge to EVERY politician up for election, not just the ones who will give you the time to argue your case. Otherwise, you'll be opposing only the candidates who WILL give you the time, but won't sign the pre- pledge. By opposing them, you'll be helping the SOBs who WON'T give you any of their time, and whose RKBA position you won't know. Skip. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 98 17:32:13 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Your mail On Apr 19, Skip Leuschner wrote: >Charles R. Norgaard wrote: > > I am going to ask every politician that >> I know, and a few I dont, to sign the above pledge, and if they wont, I will >> work hard to see that they do not succeed in the political arena. > >Chuck, Your pre-pledge is pretty strong medicine for politicians. >I don't disagree with it, but if I was running for office, I'd have >to think long and hard before signing up, knowing that by doing so >I would capture the vote of the RKBA minority, but at the same time >I might be foregoing the votes of a lot of the more moderate >citizens whose votes I MUST HAVE to get elected. > >As an elected politician, I can support 2nd amendment rights quietly >or loudly, either way without formally signing your pre-pledge. But >if I take a zealot's stand and don't get elected, it doesn't make the >slightest difference whether I support RKBA or not, does it? The >voters these days don't appear to want zealots. They are afraid >of them. They want moderates with mouths full of mush, so if >you want to get elected, you've got to speak softly and moderately >and keep your zealotry under wraps. > >As you press forward with this project, I have a bit of tactical >advice. If you're going to actively oppose everyone who won't >sign, you inherently take on the obligation to put the pre-pledge to >EVERY politician up for election, not just the ones who will give >you the time to argue your case. Otherwise, you'll be opposing only >the candidates who WILL give you the time, but won't sign the pre- >pledge. By opposing them, you'll be helping the SOBs who WON'T >give you any of their time, and whose RKBA position you won't know. > >Skip. I disagree. The Pledge whether implemented as a Unilateral or a Std. Contract, says nothing about advertizing it before the Election. If they wish to, fine, but it's not a requirement. If implemented properly, (at the Caucuses), the Critters are coming to you with their hand out for help and money. If they won't sign, they won't get it. If the do sign, then they get the bucks and support. Without the bucks and support, they can't get Re-/Elected; It's as simple as that. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:11:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Navy ships being shredded (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 00:37:05 -0500 From: Richard B Morrow Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Subject: Navy ships being shredded Posted to texas-gun-owners by k5cnf1@juno.com (Richard B Morrow) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I thought that you might like to know that a retired Naval CPO told me that he has seen a lot of our destroyers and other ships like medium cruisers being cut up at a marine wrecking yard in Brownsville, Texas. I have been to the place years ago and can confirm that it is there. He saw two destroyers being cut up in the last two weeks and said that other Navy personel have told him of carriers being towed off to India and Pakistan, for the same purposes. This is because the larger ships would be noticable here and questions would be asked, which no one wants to answer. LIke WHY???? The ships were not old wecks but of fairly recent design. Also I am sure that all of you have heard that CLinton is going to allow missle guidance systems to be sold to the Red Chinese, who have nukes and can get Russian ICBMs by using LOTs of money. We are in deep Trouble. R _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] - -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:41:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Americans losing engineering jobs to NAFTA visa workers U.S. workers find foreigners filling tech jobs Fairness of visa rules scrutinized 04/19/98 By Jayne Noble Suhler and Ed Timms / The Dallas Morning News For the nation's high-tech industry, foreign workers are the answer to a critical shortage of skilled high-tech labor. But as industry leaders lobby Congress to increase the number of noncitizens granted work visas, critics charge that U.S. corporations are depressing the job market with cheap foreign labor. They say the noncitizens are being treated as indentured servants and are displacing U.S. workers. The U.S. Department of Labor is seeking changes to address what it sees as fundamental flaws in the visa program. "There's no way to explain to people how it is that U.S. employers can reach out to India or Bangladesh or China or any other foreign country without even trying to find a U.S. worker to fill the job," said John Fraser, acting administrator of the Labor Department's wage and hour division. "And there's absolutely no way to explain to people why a U.S. employer can fire or lay off U.S. workers and replace them with foreign workers. That's just ill-conceived public policy." Earlier this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill that would raise the annual cap on the "H1-B" work visas from 65,000 to 95,000 in 1998 and up to 105,000 until 2002. The House immigration subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, is scheduled to hold hearings on the issue this week. In testimony and in a lobbying blitz, industry groups say that to stay competitive in the world market, they need more highly skilled workers - and that there aren't enough qualified U.S. citizens to go around. Industry leaders point out that the H1-B visa holders represent only a fraction of the millions of high-tech workers in the United States. "Clearly we're an industry that's been growing rapidly, and we're an industry that is driving the U.S. economy," said Michaela Platzer, vice president of the American Electronics Association, an industry advocacy group. "As American companies move forward, you've got to be able to retain the best and the brightest. You've really got to get the top 10 percent - no matter where they're located." Government officials predict that all 65,000 H1-B visas for 1998 will be granted by the end of May, well before the end of the fiscal year. Nearly 45 percent of the visas go to workers in computer-related fields, including programmers and engineers. At the same time, analysts say that the industry is slowing and that several major companies have announced layoffs in recent months. War of words Debate over the H1-B visa program has pitted rock-ribbed Republicans and free-for-all Libertarians against labor-friendly Democrats and U.S. workers. A reported shortage of high-tech workers is being supported - and disputed - with contradictory statistics and projections. Even the terminology is open to interpretation: those who hold H1-B work visas are described in government documents as "temporary" foreign workers. In fact, many already have spent years in the United States on university campuses, where U.S. tax dollars have helped finance their education. Almost half become permanent residents. As the law now stands, potential employers seeking a "labor certification" for a foreign worker submit a one-page application to the Labor Department. Employers must attest that the worker will receive the prevailing wage and benefits for the job and that other similarly employed workers won't be adversely affected. They must state that an opening is not the result of a strike or a walkout, and that current employees have been told that a foreign worker is being sought. The department also wants companies to attest that they have sought U.S. workers before bringing in a foreign worker and that they have not laid off U.S. workers to create the openings. Employers do not identify job candidates, and most fax in the applications. The Labor Department must act within seven days, unless the document is incomplete or contains obvious inaccuracies. "So even if you have information or a lead or an allegation that the employer wasn't doing or wasn't going to do what it said, you can't reject an application on that basis," said Mr. Fraser. After the certification is granted, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is petitioned for the visa. The INS determines whether the worker meets the minimum qualifications - a bachelor's degree or equivalent work experience - and other general requirements for entry. 'In a double bind' Despite wage and benefit requirements, almost one in five foreign workers was being paid less than the wage their employers had indicated, according to a recent survey by the Labor Department's inspector general. But department officials say they receive few complaints. They say that might be because employers sponsor the visas and foreign workers fear they will be sent home if they complain. "They're kind of in a double bind," Mr. Fraser said. "On the one hand, they're dependent on their employer to stay and work in the United States as a non-immigrant, and secondly, they're dependent on the employer to take action on their behalf to sponsor them for permanent status - and those are powerful incentives for them not to complain." Shree, a 28-year-old engineer from India who asked that his full name not be used, said that for two years he had been reluctant to complain to his employer about benefits and went without a raise. After he recently mentioned that he was about to receive permanent residency, his employer immediately wanted to discuss a raise. Since the H1-B program began in the early 1990s, the Labor Department has received about 300 complaints. In 91 cases, investigators concluded that companies owed almost $2.3 million in back wages and assessed about $215,000 in penalties. "But that's not a lot of money for very profitable industries, especially if one in five aren't paying what they've promised to pay, the chances of getting caught are very small," Mr. Fraser said. "It's hardly a slap on the wrist." But industry representatives suggest that the relatively low number of complaints indicates that U.S. companies aren't abusing the program. "You have a marketplace that's probably going to be the best watchdog on this," said Bob Cohen, spokesman for the Information Technology Association, an industry advocacy group. "Our members have no interest in having their competitive edge low-balled or subverted by a company that comes in and undercuts the marketplace." Some high-tech workers - and groups that represent them - argue that foreign workers help keep salaries low and make older job candidates with higher salary demands virtually unemployable. "What they [industry] are really saying is they don't have enough cheap scientists," said Gene Nelson, 46, a biophysicist who has been laid off from several high-tech jobs and currently works for a Dallas-area cellular telephone company answering technical questions. A matter of skills Dr. Nelson, who has a doctorate in biophysics from the State University of New York at Buffalo, believes that employers don't hire him because his resume does not show the most current programming experience. "What employers want is a person who has just the skills they are looking for and no more," said Dr. Nelson, who estimates that it would take him about two weeks to learn a new programming language. Often, companies want candidates who don't need training, and the H1-B visa program was created in order to fill highly specialized positions, Mr. Cohen said. "You take your ... candidates with the greatest likelihood of success, and in our particular industry that means a certain combination of education, experience and skill," he said. Employers say that when recruiting at universities, they often find the best job candidates are foreign students. "There are plenty of people coming out of American universities with degrees; unfortunately, too few of them are American citizens," said Allen Kay, a spokesman for Mr. Smith. He said the San Antonio congressman plans to introduce legislation in the House to increase the cap on the H1-B visas, although he has not decided by how much. When Simon J. Fang received his doctorate in material science from Stanford University a few years ago, he had several job offers. The Taiwanese citizen chose a position with Dallas' Texas Instruments. Dr. Fang, 30, said he did not worry about exchanging a student visa for a work visa and said he plans to seek a green card in about two years. Exaggerated claims? Many high-tech experts say the argument that companies need workers with highly specialized skills is overstated. They note that many high-tech workers don't have degrees in the field in which they're working. They run the gamut from anthropology majors to college dropouts. "What many of us are finding is that the people coming over are not significantly more technically skilled than anybody in the United States and they're not typically doing work that is breakthrough or new," said Paul Kostek, president-elect of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-U.S.A. "They're off doing grunt jobs that any kid with a B.S. degree in computer science from a U.S. school could do." In fact, Labor Department officials say that "job contractors" or "job shops" appear to be the most frequent users of H1-B workers in the high-tech fields. The job contractors, which provide temporary workers, are popular among companies who need extra workers for short-term projects or who want to limit their personnel overhead. Some of these companies, Mr. Fraser said, are staffed almost entirely by foreign workers. Whether working as interns after completing a college education on a student visa, or as an H1-B worker, foreign workers affect the U.S. workforce, Labor Department officials say. A job is "effectively occupied from the student intern days through permanent immigration status," said Raymond Uhalde, the labor department's acting assistant secretary for employment and training. Often companies will sponsor foreign employees with H1-B visas for permanent residency - but under the law they are supposed to first conduct an exhaustive search for a U.S. citizen to fill the job. The process, however, was described in a 1996 Labor Department inspector general report as "perfunctory at best and a sham at worst." Critics also say that even if foreign workers are brought in at the prevailing wage for their occupation, over time they depress salaries. "There is a certain truth in that. ... An American employee faces that fact that an immigrant worker with the same qualifications is willing to work for less pay," said Shree, the engineer from India. Critics say they expect the industry will just keep coming back for more and more foreign workers. "The whole thing boils down to dollars ..." said Bill Reed, president of the American Engineering Association. "Foreign workers have become the drug of choice for industry and academia. They're addicted and they're not going to stop until they can pick and choose from anyone in the world." 1998 The Dallas Morning News - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:13:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: waco (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Sunday April 19 2:06 PM EDT Waco tragedy marks 5th anniversary WACO, Texas, April 19 (UPI) _ Five years ago the 51-day federal siege of the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco came to a fiery end that killed more than 80 people. Survivors of the Branch Davidian stand-off won a court decision to hold a memorial service on the site of the burned-out compound once led by David Koresh. Timothy McVeigh, who went to observe the siege, was later convicted of using a truck bomb to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City in a retaliation attack. The blast killed 168 people in a retaliation attack. McVeigh's Army buddy, Terry Nichols, awaits sentencing after his conviction as an accomplice. Memorial services are being held today, with speeches as visitors from across the country stroll among trees planted on the site of the burned compound and reading markers put down by a militia group. Doug Mitchell, a member of the Branch Davidians long before Koresh took over the group, lost his bid to win a temporary restraining order to prohibit the ceremony at the site at Mt. Carmel 16 miles outside Waco. Mitchell sued over ownership of the property, seeking its return to original Branch Davidian membership. He said Koresh and his flock were no more than splinter faction, with no real standing in the main body of Branch Davidians. Four agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and two Davidians were killed in the initial raid on Feb. 28, 1993. The fire broke out nearly two months later as the FBI injected tear gas into the compound, attempting to end the siege. Both the ATF and the FBI have been criticized for their handling of the siege. _- Copyright 1998 by United Press International. All rights reserved. - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #115 *************************