The big auto companies — and a few techies like Google — are locked in competition to see who will dominate the coming self-driving market and the automated transportation future. The companies may imagine that cities will buy whole fleets of autonomous cars which will replace the privately owned vehicles that clutter up the streets and parking garages — and yes, the transportation landscape could work out that way to some degree. Or perhaps many people won’t want to give up private ownership of their vehicle because a car can also be a closet for necessary stuff, as I experienced as a commuting college student. Either way, utopian city planners fear (or hope) that overpopulation will lead to a parking armageddon in cities, and community cars owned by the government will save the day.
At the other end, where the one percent live, some car designers visualize a deluxe living room on wheels for rich customers, like a Rolls Royce model, called an “amazingly ludicrous self-driving luxury vehicle.” A recent Bentley prototype has a holographic butler to serve as an interface with the machinery — user-friendly for the uber-wealthy.
Anyway, there’s big money being poured into the self-driving project, like the $1 billion pledged in February by Ford over five years to maintain its technical expertise at a high level. Therefore, any bumps along the way — namely accidents — that may slow progress to the industry-approved future are worrying to the people in charge.
A recent report from Fox News included some interesting facts, in particular that a human driver needs to take control of the car on average every eight-tenths of a mile. That frequency of human intervention doesn’t seem very self-drivey. Perhaps the technology still needs a lot of improvement before it’s ready for mass use.
WILLIAM LA JEUNESSE: Self-driving cars and trucks are still at least 3 years away, but the road getting there has had more than a few bumps. The latest — Friday in Arizona when a driver illegally made a left turn crashing into a self-driving Uber SUV. Two employees inside escaped injury.
UBER DRIVER: I hope this bring new jobs, I hope it brings convenience, safety.
LA JEUNESSE: Uber’s self-driving program arrived in Arizona in December after a dispute in California over mandatory accident reporting. Unlike California, Arizona doesn’t require a special permit for self-driving vehicles.
VOLVO SPOKESMAN: Once you are in self-driving mode, we want to make sure that you feel you still have control of the vehicle.
LA JEUNESSE: About six companies test autonomous cars in 13 states. And while there is no central repository of accident data, in December an Uber SUV did not see a stop light in San Francisco and sailed through a crosswalk. Last February a Google autonomous car sideswiped a bus while trying to pass. In May, a Tesla driver died in a self-driving crash, but investigators could not attribute it to the auto-pilot system.
THOMAS FREY, DA VINCI INSTITUTE: All the things that go wrong in the driverless car world are going to force us to create a much more safe and durable system.
LA JEUNESSE: According to the website Recode, Uber’s 43 self-driving cars travel up to 20,000 miles a week, but a human must still take control approximately every eight-tenths of a mile.
CHRISTOPHER HART, NTSB CHAIRMAN: The theory that if you remove the driver, you remove driver error — there are several defects to that theory. First of all, the automation has to work. If the automation doesn’t work, then what? If the automation fails, will it fail safe?
FREY: Airplanes are much safer than car transportation today. It’s going to take a while before we get driverless vehicles to the same level of safety as air transportation.
LA JEUNESSE: Now as for that accident Friday in Arizona, police did cite the human driver for failing to yield to the computer-sided car, and Uber is back in the test markets. . . Tempe, Pittsburgh and San Francisco.
Attorney General Sessions appeared at the beginning of Sean Spicer’s daily press briefing on Monday to speak about the administration’s seriousness regarding the withdrawal of federal funds from communities that choose to protect illegal aliens rather than citizens.
Good afternoon. The Department of Justice has a duty to enforce our nation’s laws, including our immigration laws. Those laws require us to promptly remove aliens when they are convicted of certain crimes.
The vast majority of the American people support this common-sense requirement. According to one recent poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities.
Unfortunately, some states and cities have adopted policies designed to frustrate the enforcement of our immigration laws. This includes refusing to detain known felons under federal detainer requests, or otherwise failing to comply with these laws. For example, the Department of Homeland Security recently issued a report showing that in a single week, there were more than 200 instances of jurisdictions refusing to honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests with respect to individuals charged or convicted of a serious crime. The charges and convictions against these aliens include drug trafficking, hit and run, rape, sex offenses against a child and even murder.
Such policies cannot continue. They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets.
We all remember the tragic case of Kate Steinle, the 32-year-old woman who was shot and killed two years ago in San Francisco as she walked along a pier with her father. The shooter, Francisco Sanchez, was an illegal immigrant who had already been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.
Just eleven weeks before the shooting, San Francisco had released Sanchez from its custody, even though ICE had filed a detainer requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up for removal. Even worse, Sanchez admitted that the only reason he came to San Francisco was because of its sanctuary policies. Continue reading this article
Unsurprisingly, most citizens don’t like the idea of their town being made into an anything-goes freebie flophouse for illegal alien grifters. Obviously, the sanctuary designation is a dangerous welcome mat for criminals. Crime is a job some Americans will do, and we therefore don’t need to import lawbreaking foreigners to perform it for us.
The majority of Americans don’t want to live in a sanctuary city, according to Rasmussen’s detailed and informative poll.
The rape of a 14-year-old girl in a Maryland suburban high school by two older students who were in this country illegally has moved the sanctuary city debate back on the front burner. Most voters don’t want to live in a community that shields illegal immigrants from the government, and many question the safety of such communities.
Elected officials in many communities have declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and 35% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the community they live in declaring itself a sanctuary community. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% oppose their community declaring itself a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
A plurality (48%) of Democrats favors living in a sanctuary community, but only 27% of both Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major political party agree.
Forty percent (40%) of all voters believe sanctuary communities are less safe than communities that do not protect illegal immigrants from federal authorities. Seventeen percent (17%) say sanctuary communities are more safe, while 35% think the level of safety is about the same.
The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on March 22-23, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Most voters have favored punishing sanctuary cities in surveys since 2007. New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. are among the numerous cities that now refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Continue reading this article
A new report came out last week forecasting the likelihood of automation taking human jobs. The study comes from PwC (Price Waterhouse Cooper) and can be seen online at UK Economic Outlook where the section about international automation begins on page 30.
Here’s a snip of the PwC text leading up to an explanatory chart:
This debate was given added urgency in 2013 when researchers at Oxford University (Frey and Osborne, 2013) estimated that around 47% of total US employment had a “high risk of computerisation” over the next couple of decades – i.e. by the early 2030s.
However, there are also dissenting voices. Notably, Arntz, Gregory and Zierahn (OECD, 2016) last year re-examined the research by Frey and Osborne and, using an extensive new OECD data set, came up with a much lower estimate that only around 10% of jobs were under a “high risk of computerisation”. This is based on the reasoning that any predictions of job automation should consider the specific tasks that are involved in each job rather than the occupation as a whole.
In this article we present the findings from our own analysis of this topic, which builds on the research of both Frey and Osborne (hereafter ‘FO’) and Arntz, Gregory and Zierahn (hereafter ‘AGZ’). We then go on to discuss caveats to these results in terms of non-technological constraints on automation and potential offsetting job creation elsewhere in the economy (though this is much harder to quantify).
The following chart compares the PwC findings with the earlier reports:
The chart illustrates the comparison of estimates well, but leaves out the all-important time projection, which is the first key point, found on page 30:
Our analysis suggests that up to 30% of UK jobs could potentially be at high risk of automation by the early 2030s, lower than the US (38%) or Germany (35%), but higher than Japan (21%).
In addition, the US government’s immigration machine remains stuck on auto-pilot, importing more than one million legal immigrants annually. Why continue this outdated policy when workplace opportunities are about to shrink dramatically? It’s not like America needs workers for the factories, when the US has lost more than seven million factory jobs since manufacturing employment peaked in 1979, yet production is barreling along at near-record levels. Advanced machines are propelling a manufacturing revolution.
So America doesn’t need to import foreign workers at all going forward. In fact,
Automation makes immigration obsolete.
This kind of immigration-fueled population growth needs to stop. Hordes of unemployed foreigners are unlikely to be peaceful when jobs disappear.
Plus, it’s disappointing that the Treasury Secretary is so clueless about technology, as reported in La Times:
The automation of factories is a big factor for job loss in the U.S.
More than a third of U.S. jobs could be at “high risk” of automation by the early 2030s, a percentage that’s greater than in Britain, Germany and Japan, according to a report released Friday.
The analysis by accounting and consulting firm PwC focused primarily on the economic outlook in Britain, but it included a section on automation in Britain and elsewhere.
In the U.S., 38% of jobs could be at risk of automation, compared with 30% in Britain, 35% in Germany and 21% in Japan.
The report emphasizes that these estimates are based on the anticipated capabilities of robotics and artificial intelligence by the early 2030s, and that the pace and direction of technological progress are “uncertain.”
The key issue is not that the U.S. has more jobs in sectors that are universally ripe for automation, the report says; rather, it’s that more U.S. jobs in certain sectors are potentially vulnerable than, say, British jobs in the same sectors.
For example, the report says the financial and insurance sector has much higher possibility of automation in the U.S. than in Britain. That’s because, it says, American finance workers are less educated than British ones. Continue reading this article
The wickedness of liberal politicians still amazes, as they continue their open-borders, no-enforcement policies that directly cause the deaths and injury of innocent Americans. Liberals’ morality is a strange concoction in how they believe that the protection of foreign criminals is more virtuous than public safety for the citizens whose taxes fund the system.
A symbol of justice in America is a blindfolded woman holding a scale to indicate that the application of law should not depend on the nationality of the accused person. But liberal ideology decrees that diverse persons are victims and therefore require extra influence to be added to their side.
(Historical note regarding the following video: the man in horn-rimmed glasses standing to the left of Mayor Eric Garcetti is the long-time enemy of American law and sovereignty, Gil Cedillo. Despite being born in Barstow, the hispanic politician was known for years as “One Bill Gil” for his relentless pursuit of drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens because the document functions as a sort of amnesty-lite since it opens the door to benefits and jobs. He must be thrilled that California is moving to become a sanctuary state to spite President Trump, a policy that will of course be a giant criminal magnet.)
When asked about Mayor Garcetti’s sanctuary policy in Los Angeles — which remarkably extends to non-cooperation with the federal authorities at the city’s international airport — Rosenberg responded, “I guess insanity would be the easy answer. What’s amazing about what Garcetti is doing . . . is he’s jeopardizing the health, safety, welfare of everybody in Los Angeles and the surrounding area. If we learned one thing from the 9/11 Commission when it came to terrorism, is that law enforcement has to work together. And look what just happened in England this week — so you have a terrorist who wasn’t on the watch list, could have flown to Los Angeles and [Garcetti]’s telling the Los Angeles police, don’t work with the federal authorities even at the airport. I mean, it’s criminal behavior on his part.”
On Saturday morning, a group of pro-Trump patriots marched in the capital of Rhode Island to display their appreciation for the sovereignty-defending president. Naturally, a gaggle of anti-Trump marxists gathered to harass and jabber.
What I noticed was how effective the local police were at preventing antagonistic sides from getting out of control: they formed a line and kept the groups apart. Fundamental cop stuff, right?
Supporters and opponents of President Donald Trump got into shouting matches in front of City Hall Saturday morning as a march to the State House in support of the president got underway.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Providence police and state troopers formed a line between Trump supporters and foes at the State House terrace to prevent violence.
There were about 1,000 demonstrators at the State House, according to estimates made by Providence Journal reporters and the Providence police.
The rally ended at about 12:45 p.m., when the Providence police and state troopers ordered demonstrators to leave the area of the State House. The pro-Trump forces mostly dissipated, while the anti-Trumpers marched back toward City Hall, intending to head to a “RISE UP! Rhode Island” rally at the Roger Williams Memorial National Park on North Main Street, where organizers said they will urge people to “raise their voices against the current administration’s policies of hate and bigotry and stand in solidarity for equal rights for everyone.”
The two sides marched up Francis Street from Providence City Hall together. Trump’s supporters led. The opponents followed.
They were noisy: the President’s supporters chanting “USA, USA;” the opponents shouting expletives associated with Trump’s name.
But there was no trouble until the two factions reached the State House when there was some pushing and shoving.
That ended when the police formed their standing barrier between the two sides.
“I think it was a good representation of the American system of government,” Providence police Commander Thomas A. Verdi told The Providence Journal. “Two groups equal in size … each voicing their opinions and positions, and both very passionate, but able to do so in a very peaceful way.”
No expression of liberal grief can be complete without a vigil, and London held a tasteful British one in Trafalgar Square on Thursday that included some Islam-is-peace propaganda.
The response behavior is painfully predictable and exhibits so little understanding of what kind of relentless enemy the West faces in Islam. Being nice and accommodating won’t work, a point that was emphasized by Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she was interviewed by Tucker Carlson on Wednesday.
TUCKER CARLSON: Why is it that so many on the left — internationally, in this country, in Great Britain, all through Europe — have so much trouble coming to terms with the religious component of this violence?
AYAAN HIRSI ALI: I don’t know. I acknowledge as you do that it’s masochistic, it’s stupid, and I think if you look at the Islamists, they don’t go to the liberals and say, “Thank you so much for letting us take over; we’ll stop terrorizing.” They don’t do it.
CARLSON: So what you’re saying is the Islamists don’t want sensitivity above all, that’s not their goal.
HIRSI ALI: No, Islamists want one thing and that is a sharia-compliant society and eventually the world. That’s what their aim is; it sounds crazy to you and me and everyone else, but that’s the objective. And they want to get there through dawa — this is infrastructure of indoctrinating people into accepting it and other ways of intimidating, you know, forcing them to do it and jihad — violence. And whoever is in their way is their enemy, and it doesn’t matter how nice the liberals are, how accommodating and obliging they are — that’s the objective of the Islamists. And if you don’t understand that, then I don’t think you should be in the business of making legislation, in the business of informed leadership because you’re just incapable of understanding that problem.
Britain needs to snap out of its PC snooze and recognize that the enemy is inside the gates.
Both of the accused rapists at Maryland’s Rockville High School were students there, with ages given at 18 and 17. A photo of the older one, Henry Sanchez, was published, and he looked rather mature, so I ran the picture through Microsoft’s facial recognition software located online at How-Old.net with the following result:
To test out their claims Express.co.uk ran photographs of 11 of the child refugees who were snapped as they arrived in Britain yesterday through the How-Old.net calculator.
The facial recognition site, which judges people’s ages by analysing their facial features using complicated algorithms, was set up by computer boffins at Microsoft.
It was developed by experts at the computer giant to advance the use of facial recognition software in a variety of fields, including as a security feature to authorise bank transactions.
The site carries the disclaimer its findings are not always accurate, and that they are only designed to indicate how old somebody looks – not to give their actual age.
And a spokesman for Microsoft today insisted: “How-old.net was designed to be an example of how developers could build a fun app using modern development practices. It is not intended to be used as a definitive assessment of age.”
When express.co.uk ran photographs of five of our reporters through the system, who were all men aged between 28 and 34, its results were accurate to within two years in all but one instance. . .
To be clear, the software gives an age estimation based on appearance. There are other means to approximate the age of illegal aliens, who normally don’t present a birth certificate upon arrest, like dental examination and bone density testing.
No mention has been made of any physical examination of the foreigners placed in Rockville High School, so we must assume that officials just accepted the age given by the illegal aliens and enrolled them among American teenagers.
JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens.
Therefore the age of the illegal alien matters, and a 27-year-old foreigner would not be covered by this ruling in my non-lawyer common-sense opinion.
Stupidly permissive school officials placed two illegal aliens from Central America who claimed to be teenagers into freshman classes of Rockville High School because of their inability to speak English. As a result, a 14-year-old girl was raped and sodomized in the boys’ restroom. This horrific crime represents the diversity being foisted upon unwilling citizens by open-borders criminal-friendly sanctuary cities and states.
In addition, don’t the facial scar and broken nose suggest that Sanchez is a rough character and inappropriate to be a high school freshmen?
Fox News reported the story on Monday:
BRET BAIER: Now to a disturbing story out of suburban Washington DC where two Rockville High School students have been arrested and charged with rape, but should the teenagers have been in the country at all? Correspondent Doug McKelway has a story that is still developing tonight.
DOUG McKELWAY: At Rockville High School in progressive Montgomery County, Maryland, police say a 14-year-old ninth-grade girl was pushed into a boys’ restroom last Thursday. Despite her efforts to resist by holding on to a sink, she was shoved into a stall where she was allegedly raped and sodomized. Police arrested two ninth graders: 18 year old Henry Sanchez, an illegal from Guatemala, and a minor 17-year-old, Jose Montano, also here illegally. Both are being held without bond.
CITIZEN (PARENT?): I just hope she’s okay you know now, in a week from now, and maybe the rest of her life.
CITIZEN IN CAR: You figure that they’re protected and they’re safe, but . . .
McKELWAY: It happened amidst a debate to formally declare Rockville a sanctuary city though both it and Montgomery County have long practiced informal sanctuary. In a joint statement after President Trump’s inauguration, county leaders reassured residents of long-standing policy quote “Police do not enforce federal immigration law.” Maryland state policy goes well beyond non-enforcement, granting in-state college tuition rates to illegals. It has helped lead to massive demographic shifts here.
DANIEL McHUGH, MONTGOMERY COUNTY YOUNG GOP: Who’s come with them? Their parents their aunts, their uncles, the cousins, their nieces, their nephews. MS-13 has come through that door with them too.
McKELWAY: Among school families in central Montgomery County, 51 percent are now immigrants. The poverty rate for immigrant homes at 14 percent is twice that for native homes at seven percent, meaning a lower tax base as some schools struggle to serve student bodies speaking as many as 19 different languages.
McHUGH: Higher taxes, lowered educational standards and higher crime is what we’ve faced in Montgomery County as a result of pro-illegal-immigration policies put forth by the county government and even by the state.
McKELWAY: After Thursday’s incident the superintendent of Montgomery County Schools wrote parents about the alleged crime, calling it quote, “Horrible and unacceptable. They do not represent the positive values of our students and school communities.”
There are all too few immigrant-return stories in the media, probably because they refute the liberal narrative that immigration is a total positive for all concerned because of the increased Diversity. For some people — perhaps many — the move is not what they imagined and the adjustment is too hard: immigration stress is the cause of some immigrant crime, I suspect.
So it is totally sensible for an unhappy immigrant with skills to return home to family, culture and a career. It’s also a better choice for the United States than for millions to be importing the relatives and culture into growing separatist barrios. We Americans prefer our culture too.
Our subject today is an Indian woman, Nupur Dave, who was trained in engineering, but was worn down by lack of sleep, insufficient money from her Silicon Valley job and plain homesickness.
The San Francisco Bay Area lifestyle can be enticing, but its desirability has made it very expensive.
Why can’t there be a Mexican Dream in that wealthy nation where the middle class is growing? Why can’t there be an Indian Dream or a Brazilian Dream? On a planet of seven billion people, would-be immigrants to the first world need to reform their home nations instead of investing all their energy into an escape. It’s racist to think non-white people cannot manage successful societies.
The path to America-style prosperity is not a mystery: it requires equality under law, freedom, property ownership and an openness to entrepreneurial activity.
Nupur Dave (pictured below) made the decision to go home to India and her move has worked out well.
By all accounts, including her own, Nupur Dave had the dream life.
A native of India, she had spent the past decade living in the US. She was working at Google at the perk-filled “Googleplex” headquarters in Mountain View, California, at a job she loved. And she had obtained a permanent residence, her green card.
She was a manager for a part of Google called Network Content Distribution, the network tech that makes Google run faster (in geek speak: it’s Google’s homegrown alternative to a content distribution network like Akamai).
And the opportunities for promotion were plentiful.
“I got to travel all over the world, attend conferences,” she told Business Insider.”It was great. The team was great. It was really good job.”
There was just one problem. She was growing increasingly unhappy with this Silicon Valley dream life.
Expensive and lonely
For one thing, the cost of living was a hardship. While she was paid well, it wasn’t enough to get ahead in the costly Bay Area, much less buy a house. Continue reading this article
Will Uncle Sucker’s ill-considered spending of taxpayer dollars to dirtbag hellholes be pruned?? Recipient pigpens of corruption immediately began bleating in terror along with defenders of the traditional order to the news. Al Jazeera reported alarm emanating from the United Nations. Germany’s DW opined that the cuts would “diminish US influence”, suggesting that good behavior is sustained only through American bribery. The BBC characterized the cuts as a “squeeze” even though the reduction is only 28 percent of wasteful expenditures in sketchy nations.
In the following video, Ambassador James Dobbins explains the supposedly wonderful purposes for which foreign aid money is spent:
Below, Obama spent generously in corrupt regimes throughout Africa and across the Islamic world during his administration:
Will more billions be funneled to Afghanistan? Attempts at nation building in the future Talibanistan is the ultimate in stupid waste because the aid doesn’t work and it has fueled corruption — shocking, I know.
7 The U.S.‐Mexico Merida Initiative is an unprecedented partnership between the United States and Mexico to fight organized crime and associated violence while strengthening the rule of law. USG funding for the Merida Initiative has totaled approximately $2 billion since 2008, with the GOM typically investing 10X USG spending in priority program areas. The four pillars of the Merida Initiative are: I. Disrupt Organized Criminal Groups; II. Strengthen Institutions; III. Build a 21st Century Border; and IV. Build Strong and Resilient Communities.
Interestingly, the USAID report’s cover includes a photo of young students playing violins. Does our foreign aid pay for violin instruction or kiddie orchestras in Mexico? No mention of violins is given in the paper.
Thursday’s front page story from the Sacramento Bee about Afghan translators who haven’t yet been rescued with a visa to America is a reminder that military entanglements abroad have a way of becoming a runway for immigrants. We further learn that thousands of Afghan nationals have settled in the Sacramento area on Special Immigrant Visas as a result of their help to the US military. (Sacramento is a diverse city, where over 22 percent are foreign born.)
It’s a familiar story: American troops need local help to be more effective in stomping the bad guys, and those helpers then must be rescued and resettled in the USA because they can no longer live in their homeland — which seems a failure of the whole project somehow. And the worse the war goes, the more foreigners must be saved from living in their country and plunked down in some American town far from Washington DC where the decisions were made. One thinks of Vietnam, where the failure there brought a flood of refugees and boat people to the point where well over a million now reside in this country.
Now the US is mucking about in jihad territory, with troops in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. We can see that this means more muslim immigrants, which is exactly what America does not need.
Muslims seem to come with a recessive jihad gene that may suddenly pop into activity in the younger generation. Faisal Razmal, the Afghan translator pictured above, may be a fine fellow who genuinely aided US soldiers in Afghanistan. However, a cousin Mohammed who could eventually come via family chain migration may not be so friendly. And some young muslims who are born and raised in America by apparently responsible parents can go violently jihad through a combination of youthful hormones and internet-induced guilt, reflecting the second-generation problem common to Islamic immigration.
Therefore the optimal number of muslim immigrants is ZERO, and the military project to squash ISIS should ideally be conducted via drones and robots only — no troops on the ground who need translators or any human contact.
That strategy is not likely, but the standard human approach creates unacceptable collateral cost for the homeland.
Afghans who aided U.S. forces fighting the Taliban can no longer receive special visas for their service, at least until year’s end, said U.S. senators and advocates who are trying to pass legislation to restart the flow of newcomers.
That visa halt promises to thwart the reunion plans of many in Sacramento’s growing community of Afghan Special Immigrant Visa, or SIV, holders, considered the largest in the United States. Many of them are still praying for loved ones to arrive from the war-torn Central Asian country.
The U.S. Embassy in the Afghan capital of Kabul has officially stopped accepting applications to the SIV program established by Congress in 2009 under the Afghan Allies Protection Act, said Matt Zeller, the founder of No One Left Behind, a nonprofit group dedicated to helping Afghan interpreters begin new lives in the United States. More than 45,000 Afghan SIV holders and their family members have been resettled in the U.S. over the last eight years, including translators, helicopter pilot trainers, doctors, engineers and intelligence specialists.
Every year until 2016, Congress had authorized 4,000 Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans, but last November, Congress extended the program for only 1,500 applicants for all of 2017, far fewer than those eligible to come, advocates said. Many of the applicants live in danger of retaliation by the Taliban and other groups in Afghanistan.
Those 1,500 visas have just run out, less than three months into 2017, shocking many of the estimated 7,000 Afghan SIV holders and their families who have resettled in the Sacramento area, Zeller said. Some have relatives and friends who have applied to come to Sacramento. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.