Migrants with at least £5m in the bank will have a shorter time to wait and entrepreneurs will get preferential treatment The super-rich are to be offered a fast track to settle in Britain under new immigration rules for high-value investors and entrepreneurs to be unveiled Wednesday. Overseas “super-investors” who are willing to keep £5m in a UK bank account are to be given the right to stay indefinitely in Britain after only three years, two years faster than the five-year wait imposed on every other migrant. An overseas investor who is willing to deposit more than £10m in the UK will win the right to stay even quicker, after only two years. The package of measures to attract the super-rich to Britain, to be unveiled by the immigration minister, Damian Green, at the London Stock Exchange, contrasts sharply with government plans to break the link with the right to settle for those who come to study or work temporarily in the UK. The rules for entrepreneurs are also to be relaxed so that they become eligible for permanent settlement rights in Britain within three years if they have created 10 jobs or achieved an annual turnover of £10m a year for their UK business. This is to encourage promising start-up companies who do not meet the investment criteria. Perhaps more importantly for the overseas super-rich, the number of days they can spend out of the country and still qualify for UK residence rights is to be doubled from 90 to 180. Alex Ruffel of Berkeley Law, who specialise in immigration matters for high net worth individuals, said she expected that the new rules will double the 275 super-wealthy investors and entrepreneurs who came to live in Britain last year. She also reports a recent surge in inquiries about coming to the UK from Middle East clients concerned at current developments in the region. The sliding scale for investors will start at those willing to deposit at least £1m in a British bank account which will secure them the right to settlement after five years, but they will enjoy an exemption from any English language test which now applies to most other routes. Further details are also expected to be announced for the new “exceptional talent” immigration route which will allow up to 1,000 migrants who have “won international recognition in scientific and cultural fields”, or have the potential to do so. Unlike this category there will be no limit on the numbers of investors and entrepreneurs who will be allowed in. Ruffel said that the decision to allow high-worth migrants to be out of the country for six months a year was one of the most important elements of the package: “Currently they have to spend nine months of the year in Britain to qualify for indefinite leave to remain or to extend their visa. This can be a problem for those who are very wealthy and are in business in several countries, including their own country of origin.” The shorter route for settlement will not necessarily mean that the super-wealthy will also get a fast track to a British passport as the qualifying periods for citizenship appear to be left untouched. Those who come will also have to pay UK tax on their British earnings. The announcement comes in advance of the final proposals to make deep cuts in the number of overseas students coming to Britain in order to meet the Conservative manifesto target of reducing net migration below 100,000 a year. The home secretary, Theresa May, told MPs last November that she wanted a new approach that was more selective and brought in more of those who would make a real difference to our economy: “We want to actively encourage entrepreneurs to come. As the prime minister [has] said, we will reform the rules for entrepreneurs so that if you have a great business idea, and you receive serious investment from a leading investor, you are welcome to set up your business in our country.” Immigration and asylum Damian Green Theresa May Entrepreneurs Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Migrants with at least £5m in the bank will have a shorter time to wait and entrepreneurs will get preferential treatment The super-rich are to be offered a fast track to settle in Britain under new immigration rules for high-value investors and entrepreneurs to be unveiled Wednesday. Overseas “super-investors” who are willing to keep £5m in a UK bank account are to be given the right to stay indefinitely in Britain after only three years, two years faster than the five-year wait imposed on every other migrant. An overseas investor who is willing to deposit more than £10m in the UK will win the right to stay even quicker, after only two years. The package of measures to attract the super-rich to Britain, to be unveiled by the immigration minister, Damian Green, at the London Stock Exchange, contrasts sharply with government plans to break the link with the right to settle for those who come to study or work temporarily in the UK. The rules for entrepreneurs are also to be relaxed so that they become eligible for permanent settlement rights in Britain within three years if they have created 10 jobs or achieved an annual turnover of £10m a year for their UK business. This is to encourage promising start-up companies who do not meet the investment criteria. Perhaps more importantly for the overseas super-rich, the number of days they can spend out of the country and still qualify for UK residence rights is to be doubled from 90 to 180. Alex Ruffel of Berkeley Law, who specialise in immigration matters for high net worth individuals, said she expected that the new rules will double the 275 super-wealthy investors and entrepreneurs who came to live in Britain last year. She also reports a recent surge in inquiries about coming to the UK from Middle East clients concerned at current developments in the region. The sliding scale for investors will start at those willing to deposit at least £1m in a British bank account which will secure them the right to settlement after five years, but they will enjoy an exemption from any English language test which now applies to most other routes. Further details are also expected to be announced for the new “exceptional talent” immigration route which will allow up to 1,000 migrants who have “won international recognition in scientific and cultural fields”, or have the potential to do so. Unlike this category there will be no limit on the numbers of investors and entrepreneurs who will be allowed in. Ruffel said that the decision to allow high-worth migrants to be out of the country for six months a year was one of the most important elements of the package: “Currently they have to spend nine months of the year in Britain to qualify for indefinite leave to remain or to extend their visa. This can be a problem for those who are very wealthy and are in business in several countries, including their own country of origin.” The shorter route for settlement will not necessarily mean that the super-wealthy will also get a fast track to a British passport as the qualifying periods for citizenship appear to be left untouched. Those who come will also have to pay UK tax on their British earnings. The announcement comes in advance of the final proposals to make deep cuts in the number of overseas students coming to Britain in order to meet the Conservative manifesto target of reducing net migration below 100,000 a year. The home secretary, Theresa May, told MPs last November that she wanted a new approach that was more selective and brought in more of those who would make a real difference to our economy: “We want to actively encourage entrepreneurs to come. As the prime minister [has] said, we will reform the rules for entrepreneurs so that if you have a great business idea, and you receive serious investment from a leading investor, you are welcome to set up your business in our country.” Immigration and asylum Damian Green Theresa May Entrepreneurs Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …There’s nothing so dramatic to illustrate the point that neoconservatives think along the same lines as liberal interventionists than this case of arguing about intervening in Libya’s civil war. On the right, we have this joker Paul Wolfowitz, who wants to illustrate that his political ideology of using military force to spread democracy and liberty throughout the Middle East is in fact a good and just one. The answer to the first of these questions can only come after establishing direct contact with the new authorities, but the delivery of supplies should not be such a problem, either through the many ports along the Libyan coast or across the Egyptian border. Nonlethal assistance could be important, including basic supplies such as food and medicine. So could broadcasting assistance to discourage Gadhafi’s forces from fighting. The concern that American weapons might end up in the wrong hands must definitely be considered before supplying shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, but other weapons pose less of a risk—particularly accurate antitank weapons. In any case, forcing the Libyans to turn to other countries for arms would repeat the mistakes of Afghanistan in the 1980s and Bosnia in the 1990s. It is only in the context of a larger assistance strategy that a no-fly zone should be considered. It would be different from the prolonged and largely futile zones imposed over southern Iraq from 1991-2003 or over Bosnia from 1992-1995. Intended to stop the genocides of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq and of the Muslim population of Bosnia, they did neither. Critics accurately point out that the massacre of 11,000 Muslims in Srebrenica took place under a NATO-imposed no-fly zone. But the situation in Libya would be very different if the Libyan people are properly armed. Yes, the Clinton administration’s policies were certainly ill-considered, look how many people didn’t get killed and how many countries weren’t invaded. But this jackass, this mad joker, doesn’t want to be concerned about the fallout of any US military aid to Libya. I recall seeing mention that the Libyans who came to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight against the American occupation over the past few years came from the eastern side – where the rebels are. What do you think they’re going to do with those anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons after the civil war ends, Mr. Wolfowitz? As MoDo correctly asks , does this guy know when to shut the hell up? Now we have the clowns on the left to deal with. Ann-Marie Slaughter, former Director of Policy Planning in the Obama
Continue reading …There’s nothing so dramatic to illustrate the point that neoconservatives think along the same lines as liberal interventionists than this case of arguing about intervening in Libya’s civil war. On the right, we have this joker Paul Wolfowitz, who wants to illustrate that his political ideology of using military force to spread democracy and liberty throughout the Middle East is in fact a good and just one. The answer to the first of these questions can only come after establishing direct contact with the new authorities, but the delivery of supplies should not be such a problem, either through the many ports along the Libyan coast or across the Egyptian border. Nonlethal assistance could be important, including basic supplies such as food and medicine. So could broadcasting assistance to discourage Gadhafi’s forces from fighting. The concern that American weapons might end up in the wrong hands must definitely be considered before supplying shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, but other weapons pose less of a risk—particularly accurate antitank weapons. In any case, forcing the Libyans to turn to other countries for arms would repeat the mistakes of Afghanistan in the 1980s and Bosnia in the 1990s. It is only in the context of a larger assistance strategy that a no-fly zone should be considered. It would be different from the prolonged and largely futile zones imposed over southern Iraq from 1991-2003 or over Bosnia from 1992-1995. Intended to stop the genocides of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq and of the Muslim population of Bosnia, they did neither. Critics accurately point out that the massacre of 11,000 Muslims in Srebrenica took place under a NATO-imposed no-fly zone. But the situation in Libya would be very different if the Libyan people are properly armed. Yes, the Clinton administration’s policies were certainly ill-considered, look how many people didn’t get killed and how many countries weren’t invaded. But this jackass, this mad joker, doesn’t want to be concerned about the fallout of any US military aid to Libya. I recall seeing mention that the Libyans who came to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight against the American occupation over the past few years came from the eastern side – where the rebels are. What do you think they’re going to do with those anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons after the civil war ends, Mr. Wolfowitz? As MoDo correctly asks , does this guy know when to shut the hell up? Now we have the clowns on the left to deal with. Ann-Marie Slaughter, former Director of Policy Planning in the Obama
Continue reading …The Obama administration is trying to bring together both sides in the debate over gun control for a series of meetings, but the NRA sees it as a waste of time. “Why should I or the NRA go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime…
Continue reading …U.S. News: Political Donations of NPR Board, NPR Foundation Officers Dramatically Lean Left to Democrats
March 15, 2011 No Comment
Danielle Kurtzleben at U.S. News & World Report crunched some numbers of federal campaign contributions and discovered that the NPR Board and the board of the NPR Foundation are — surprise, surprise — much more likely to donate to Democrats. A review of campaign finance data found that NPR board members' campaign contributions have sharply favored Democrats . Since 2004, members of the boards of NPR and the NPR Foundation, the public broadcaster's fundraising arm, have contributed nearly $2.2 million to federal candidates, parties, and PACs, of which $1.95 million, or 89 percent, has gone to Democratic candidates and liberal-leaning political action committees. Officers and trustees of the NPR Foundation, which has no control over the organization's programming, have given substantially to national political campaigns in recent years. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, this group's members (as listed on NPR's most recent available annual report, from fiscal year 2008) have given almost $2.1 million to political campaigns in the last eight years. Fully 89 percent of this giving was to Democrats and progressive organizations. These figures include all federal contributions since the 2004 election cycle, the first in which “soft money” contributions were banned. “Soft money” refers to money given to a party for non-campaign activities, which until being banned in 2002 were unlimited and largely unregulated. A majority of contributions from members of NPR's Board of Directors have likewise gone to Democrats. This board comprises 10 NPR station managers, the NPR president, the NPR Foundation president, and five prominent members of the public, selected by the board and confirmed by member stations. Political contributions by these station managers have been virtually nonexistent, and there are also no recorded political contributions from either Ron Schiller or Vivian Schiller. Of the five public board members, however, giving has been far more Democratic than Republican , with nearly 95 percent of the group's $106,000 in contributions going to Democrats or progressive committees. Three of these members have given exclusively to Democrats since the start of 2003, though in amounts less than $5,000 each. One member, Carol Cartwright, has given $4,100 to Republicans and $700 to Democrats. But the biggest giver, John A. Herrmann, Jr., has given $82,500 to candidates and committees since 2003, 98 percent of
Continue reading …U.S. News: Political Donations of NPR Board, NPR Foundation Officers Dramatically Lean Left to Democrats
March 15, 2011 No CommentDanielle Kurtzleben at U.S. News & World Report crunched some numbers of federal campaign contributions and discovered that the NPR Board and the board of the NPR Foundation are — surprise, surprise — much more likely to donate to Democrats. A review of campaign finance data found that NPR board members' campaign contributions have sharply favored Democrats . Since 2004, members of the boards of NPR and the NPR Foundation, the public broadcaster's fundraising arm, have contributed nearly $2.2 million to federal candidates, parties, and PACs, of which $1.95 million, or 89 percent, has gone to Democratic candidates and liberal-leaning political action committees. Officers and trustees of the NPR Foundation, which has no control over the organization's programming, have given substantially to national political campaigns in recent years. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, this group's members (as listed on NPR's most recent available annual report, from fiscal year 2008) have given almost $2.1 million to political campaigns in the last eight years. Fully 89 percent of this giving was to Democrats and progressive organizations. These figures include all federal contributions since the 2004 election cycle, the first in which “soft money” contributions were banned. “Soft money” refers to money given to a party for non-campaign activities, which until being banned in 2002 were unlimited and largely unregulated. A majority of contributions from members of NPR's Board of Directors have likewise gone to Democrats. This board comprises 10 NPR station managers, the NPR president, the NPR Foundation president, and five prominent members of the public, selected by the board and confirmed by member stations. Political contributions by these station managers have been virtually nonexistent, and there are also no recorded political contributions from either Ron Schiller or Vivian Schiller. Of the five public board members, however, giving has been far more Democratic than Republican , with nearly 95 percent of the group's $106,000 in contributions going to Democrats or progressive committees. Three of these members have given exclusively to Democrats since the start of 2003, though in amounts less than $5,000 each. One member, Carol Cartwright, has given $4,100 to Republicans and $700 to Democrats. But the biggest giver, John A. Herrmann, Jr., has given $82,500 to candidates and committees since 2003, 98 percent of
Continue reading …
Type: eBooks Title: 101 Things You Didn’t Know About Irish History See all customer reviews Product Description: Forget about shamrocks, leprechauns, and all that blarney, 101 Things You Didn’t Know About Irish History dispels the myths and tells the true stories of the Irish. Inside, you’ll learn about about: Lives of the ancient Celts until the British invasions Famous Irish including Michael Collins, Charles Parnell-and Bono! The Potato Famine and Immigration (were there really gangs of New York?) Irish music and dance Folklore, faeries, and leprechauns Complete with a Irish language primer and pronunciation guide, 101 Things You Didn’t Know About Irish History is an informative reference for anyone who loves the Irish! See the details
Continue reading …
Breaking News! Japan Radiation Leak! Fourth Reactor Explosion 3/15/11 JAPAN RADIATION LEAK SCARE ** EARTHQUAKE SHORTENED LENGHT OF DAYS 3/15/11 TVJ NEWS – BROADCASTING COMMISSION MOVES AGAINST RAGASHANTI {JAMAICA} Japanese ordered indoors in radiation leak crisis | The Daily … SOMA, Japan In a nationally televised statement, Prime Minister Naoto Kan said radiation has spread from four reactors of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant. Yen Jumps on Fears of Radiation Leak from Nuclear Plant — Forex News The Japanese yen gained today as the Japanese investors are expected to bring their overseas assets back to Japan on the concern about the radiation leak from the nuclear plant. Fukushima Dai- Ichi plant of Tokyo Electric Power Company … Japanese suggested to stay indoors following radiation leak The Nation – Thailand’s most updated English news website, Breaking news,Thai politics news,Business update,Bangkok news,Thailand Travel,Analysis – nationmultimedia.com. Japan: Radiation Leak Feared After New Hydrogen Blast At Nuclear … narayanan on Japan Nuclear Plant In Radiation Leak Danger. No one is going to tell the tr… Posted Mar 15, 2011. A reader on Macedonia Harshens Tone Towards EU And US Critics. Who said I am Greek?? Now your… Posted Mar 15, 2011 … Radiation leak feared at spent fuel pool, water injection ordered … Radiation leak feared at spent fuel pool, water injection ordered. TOKYO, March 16, Kyodo. A nuclear crisis at the quake-hit Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant deepened Tuesday as fresh explosions occurred at the site and its operator said … Rallythis says: Japan can't even control the radiation leak ….
Continue reading …