Archive for April, 2022

What to look forward to in Game 2 of Ginebra vs Meralco PBA Finals – Sports Interactive Network Philippines

GAME Two of the PBA 46th Season Governors Cup is slated to be played on Friday night, with the scene shifting to the Mall of Asia Arena. Incidentally, the venue was where Ginebra was crowned as champion during the 2019 season where it beat Meralco in Game Five of the series, 105-93.

Ginebra though will need to rekindle that winning feeling at the Mall of Asia Arena for Game Two after the Kings lost to the Bolts, 104-91, on Wednesday. Meralco will now be eyeing a 2-0 lead in Fridays titular showdown.

Lets review what happened in Game One, and a couple of things to look forward to in Game Two.

According to PBA statistics chief Fidel Mangonon, 60 out of the 88 Game One winners in a best-of-seven finals series went on to win the championship.

The Bolts had an excellent shooting night in Game One, converting 51 percent of their shots (42-of-81). They picked up where they left off in Game Five of the semifinals against Magnolia where they shot 46 percent. They also limited the Gin Kings to only 38 percent from the field (31-of-81) in Game One. Meralco also had more points in the paint, 52-36. Can they sustain this production in Game Two?

Continue reading below

Continue reading below

Recommended Videos

More known for his defense and hustle plays, Cliff Hodge stepped up off the bench in putting the ball to the hoop, scoring a conference-high 17 points on 8-of-9 shooting from the field. Meralco coach Norman Black expects adjustments by Ginebra as far as defending Hodge is concerned.

Justin Brownlee had 27 points in Ginebras Game One defeat, which actually isnt bad. But Brownlee would definitely want to improve on his 7-of-20 clip from the field, which at 35 percent is his worst shooting game of the conference. Meralco coach Norman Black said Brownlee still put on an excellent showing, and will have to defend the import again for Game Two.

Tony Bishop made up for his offensive struggles in Game Five of the semifinals against Magnolia as he hit 20 points and grabbed 12 rebounds. His presence was felt in the third quarter where he had 12 points.

Continue reading below

It was a back-to-back 20-point night for Allein Maliksi, who picked up where he left off in Game Five of the semifinals against Magnolia, scoring 22 points in the finals opener against Ginebra. Maliksi also shot 5-of-7 from threes after nailing six in the knockout game against the Hotshots.

Aaron Black scored the first two points of the ballgame for Meralco, and it set the tone for his solid performance with 12 points, six rebounds, and three assists.

Norman Black: Because Ive been on the losing end so many times in this conference, Im just taking it one game at a time. We got the first game and Im going to look at the first game like its 0-0. We have to get the second game.

Tim Cone: Frankly, we were terrible. They were great. They looked prepared and motivated. We looked as if we were taking a walk in the park. We are hoping we can turn that around in Game Two. Needless to say, we dont want to fall into a 2-0 hole.

Continue reading below

PBA commissioner Willie Marcial has summoned Arvin Tolentino and Raymar Jose for their role in a scuffle late and even after Game One of the finals series. Jose and Tolentino were called for technical fouls late in the match, and their exchange spilled over to the hallway at the Big Dome shortly thereafter.

Lost in the Game One defeat was Scottie Thompsons triple-double effort after he finished with 19 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists. It was Thompsons second triple-double of the conference after he had a 20-13-11 against Terrafirma last February 27.

Christian Standhardinger notched his fifth consecutive double-double with his 20-point, 14-rebound night against Meralco in Game One.

The Barangay Ginebra veteran struggled in Game One with LA Tenorio scoring a conference-low five points on 1-of-8 from the field, and his presence is definitely needed on Friday night. During the semifinals, he was averaging 14.5 points against NLEX.

Continue reading below

We are now on Quento! to enjoy more articles and videos from SPIN.ph and other Summit Media websites.

View post:
What to look forward to in Game 2 of Ginebra vs Meralco PBA Finals - Sports Interactive Network Philippines

Pay the vaccine-hesitant to get their COVID-19 shots ScienceDaily – Verve Times

Never dismiss the power of money to persuade. A study initiated before the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines has found that a $1000 incentive for the vaccine-hesitant could boost vaccine rates up to 87 percent.

At the time, that number was considered sufficient to confer herd immunity. With COVID-19 variants now proliferating globally, notions of herd immunity have changed. But the authors say their findings are still valuable, given that much of the developing world has yet to become fully vaccinated, and as public health officials continue to encourage vaccination as a powerful tool against serious health effects.

Its even a bigger question than vaccines and COVID. This is part of a larger set of ?dilemmas called collective action problems such as how do we convince people to take action to mitigate climate change, says Vivek Nandur, a doctoral student in behavioural economics at the University of Torontos Rotman School of Management and one of three study co-authors. This speaks to that and how monetary incentives can be used to influence larger behaviour change.

Some 2,500 study participants, recruited online in December 2020, were asked if they planned to get the vaccine or, if they would accept it under one of three conditions if it were free, if it was effective against COVID-19, or if it had no side effects.,

Those who answered yes varied from 68 percent in the free vaccine category to 75 percent for those in the no side effects group. Some 70 percent of participants in the no conditions group said they would get vaccinated.

All participants who answered no, were then asked how much money would incentivize them to accept the vaccine. A $500 cash incentive brought the percentage of vaccine willing up to 80 percent. But the $1000 cash incentive, the maximum, raised that figure to nearly 87 percent.

Between 13 and 15 percent of participants were unwilling to accept the vaccine under any circumstances. But Nandur said the results support other findings that show that the vaccine hesitant are not a homogeneous group and that public health strategies need to be similarly nuanced and targeted. Even cash incentives are not a panacea, and can potentially backfire, given other conditions.

As one example, offering the vaccine for free in our experiment seems to make people a bit warier, which is confusing and likely needs more examination, Nandur said.

Money aside, people were more willing to take the vaccine if it was shown as effective against COVID-19, or had no side effects. Hesitancy was stronger among younger people than older ones, and among political conservatives.

The study was published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.

Nandur co-authored the study with David Soberman, a professor of marketing and the Canadian National Chair of Strategic Marketing at the Rotman School, and Ganesh Iyer of the Haas School of Business at the University of Berkley.

The researchers have since looked at the effects of a 2021 policy by the government of West Virginia to offer $100 savings bonds to people aged 16 to 35 who get vaccinated. The policy was introduced to boost the states lagging vaccination rate from 52 to beyond 70 percent.

More here:
Pay the vaccine-hesitant to get their COVID-19 shots ScienceDaily - Verve Times

Brit Hume: Administration isn’t doing enough to solve migrant crisis – Fox News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Fox News senior political analyst Brit Humereacted to migrant buses heading to Washington, D.C., on "Special Report" Wednesday.

BRIT HUME: It is, in a sense, a publicity stunt. It's probably no accident that they were dropping the migrants off just outside our bureau in Washington. Convenient, right? And I wonder how many other news organizations will really cover this event. Obviously, the intention is to shame the politicians in Washington, particularly in the administration, who seem unwilling or unable to do anything to really stop the flow of migrants across the border. Now, with Title 42 about to be lifted, even though they're leaving other pandemic-related restrictions in place, they have a case. They have a strong case because I think the sense people get in this country is that these migrants are pouring across the border illegally. They're staying here indefinitely and this administration is not trying to do very much about it at all.

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

Link:
Brit Hume: Administration isn't doing enough to solve migrant crisis - Fox News

How Does the US Refugee System Work? – Council on Foreign Relations

Introduction

Until recently, the United States was the worlds top country for refugee admissions. From taking in hundreds of thousands of Europeans displaced by World War II to welcoming those escaping from communist regimes in Europe and Asia during the Cold War, the United States has helped define protections for refugees under international humanitarian law. Beginning in 1980, the U.S. government moved from an ad hoc approach to the permanent, standardized system for identifying, vetting, and resettling prospective refugees that is still in use today.

More From Our Experts

The size of the U.S. refugee program has often fluctuated. The war in Syria and the resulting migration crisis in Europe increased policymakers scrutiny of arrivals from the Middle East, beginning with the administration of President Barack Obama. President Donald Trump ratcheted up that scrutiny with a ban on refugees from certain countries and sharp cuts to overall refugee admissions, sparking new debate over the national security implications of refugee policy. As conflict in places such as Afghanistan and Ukraine displaces millions of people, President Joe Biden has pledged to rebuild the U.S. refugee program.

More on:

Refugees and Displaced Persons

United States

Donald Trump

Immigration and Migration

Joe Biden

There are several different terms used to describe people who move from one place to another, either voluntarily or under threat of force. With no universal legal definition, migrant is an umbrella term for people who leave their homes and often cross international borders, whether to seek economic opportunity or escape persecution.

Daily News Brief

A summary of global news developments with CFR analysis delivered to your inbox each morning.Most weekdays.

A weekly digest of the latestfrom CFR on the biggest foreign policy stories of the week, featuring briefs, opinions, and explainers. Every Friday.

A curation of original analyses, data visualizations, and commentaries, examining the debates and efforts to improve health worldwide.Weekly.

As defined by U.S. law and the 1951 Refugee Convention, refugees are migrants seeking entry from a third country who are able to demonstrate that they have been persecuted, or have reason to fear persecution, on the basis of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. According to the UN refugee agency, there were nearly twenty-one million refugees worldwide as of mid-2021, more than half of whom came from just four countries: Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Myanmar, in descending order.

Asylum seekers are those who meet the criteria for refugee status but apply from within the United States, or at ports of entry, after arriving under a different status. Asylum seekers follow a different protocol than those applying for refugee status.

More From Our Experts

For more than seventy-five years, the United States has accepted migrants who would be identified under current international law as refugees. In the wake of World War II, the United States passed its first refugee legislation to manage the resettlement of some 650,000 displaced Europeans. Throughout the Cold War, the United States accepted refugees fleeing from communist regimes, such as those in China, Cuba, and Eastern Europe.

But the countrys official federal effort to resettle refugees, known as the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), was not created until passage of the Refugee Act of 1980. Prior to 1980, legislation that authorized the acceptance of refugees was passed primarily on an ad hoc basis, often responding to ongoing mass migrations. It was not until after the fall of South Vietnam to communist forces in 1975, when the United States began taking in hundreds of thousands of Southeast Asian refugees, that Congress established a more standardized system.

More on:

Refugees and Displaced Persons

United States

Donald Trump

Immigration and Migration

Joe Biden

The 1980 legislation, signed by President Jimmy Carter, established permanent procedures for vetting, admitting, and resettling refugees into the country; incorporated the official definition of the term refugee; increased the number of refugees to be admitted annually to fifty thousand; and granted the president authority to admit additional refugees in emergencies. Since that law was passed, the United States has admitted more than three million refugees.

The number of refugees admitted into the United States annually has generally declined from more than 200,000 at the start of the program in 1980 to approximately 11,400 in 2021. Levels of refugee admissions fluctuated dramatically throughout that time period, falling through the 1980s and spiking again in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Annual numerical ceilings on refugee admissions are proposed by the president and require congressional approval. Following the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush suspended refugee admissions for several months, citing national security concerns. From 2001 to 2015, caps on refugee admissions stayed between seventy thousand and eighty thousand, though both the Bush and Obama administrations regularly admitted fewer people than the ceilings allowed.

In 2016, President Obama increased an earlier approved ceiling of eighty thousand to allow in an additional five thousand refugees as part of an effort to address a growing migration crisis caused by worsening conflict in Syria. As humanitarian crises elsewhere grew more dire, including in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama proposed that the United States set a ceiling of 110,000 refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017.

President Trump reversed Obamas proposed ceiling by capping the number of refugees allowed into the country in fiscal year 2017 at fifty thousand. He lowered this ceiling further to forty-five thousand for 2018, then thirty thousand for 2019, and 18,000 for 2020. His administration argued that the reduction was necessary to direct more government resources to the backlog of applications from nearly eight hundred thousand asylum seekers who had reached the southern U.S. border. Despite critics countering that the asylum and refugee programs have little bearing on one another, Trump set an even lower ceiling of fifteen thousand for fiscal year 2021by far the lowest cap since the programs start.

President Biden has promised to reverse this downward trend. In May 2021, he revised the annual admissions cap to 62,500 for the remainder of the year, and in October, he doubled the ceiling for fiscal year 2022 to 125,000, with the majority of admission slots allocated to refugees from Africa and Southeast Asia. Even so, it is unclear how quickly Trump-era reductions can be reversed. The United States accepted fewer than twelve thousand refugees in 2021; some advocacy groups argue that the annual cap should proportionately reflect the number of refugees worldwide.

The United States has consistently received refugees from Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America, though the total number of admissions has changed dramatically for some regions in the time since the U.S. refugee resettlement program was created. Immediately following passage of the 1980 act, more than two hundred thousand refugeesthe highest total in recent historywere admitted to the country; the vast majority originated in Southeast Asian countries, including Cambodia and Vietnam.

Refugees admitted to the United States from former Soviet countries increased sharply in the decade beginning in 1989. From 2010 to 2020, the highest number of refugees came from Myanmar, Iraq, and Bhutan, in descending order. By comparison, in 2021, the countries with the highest number of refugees admitted to the United States were the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, in descending order.

In 2017, Trump issued an executive order that temporarily prohibited the entry of nationals of seven Muslim-majority countriesIran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemenand indefinitely barred all Syrian refugees. (Admissions for Syrians restarted in January 2018.) The executive order also tightened visa restrictions that had been imposed under Obama on those seven countries. The Trump administration revised the order twice amid legal challenges, until April 2018, when the Supreme Court allowed the third version of the order to stand.

Trump also heavily criticized a resettlement deal with Australia finalized by Obama, in which the United States was to take 1,250 refugees currently being held by Australian authorities in offshore detention centers. Many of these refugees were from Iran and Somalia, countries included in the third iteration of the travel ban. By June 2021, Washington had resettled resettled 968 refugees as part of the deal.

The U.S. State Department, in consultation with a constellation of other agencies and organizations, manages the process through its refugee admission program, USRAP. The first step for a potential refugee abroad is most often to register with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). UNHCR officials collect documentation and perform an initial screening and then refer qualifying individuals to State Department Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs), of which there are nine around the world. Sometimes this referral is done by a U.S. embassy or a nongovernmental organization.

Then, RSC officials interview the applicants, verify their personal data, and submit their information for background checks by a suite of U.S. national security agencies. These security checks [PDF] include multiple forms of biometric screening, such as cross-checks of global fingerprint databases and medical tests.

If none of these inquiries produce problematic results, including criminal histories, past immigration violations, connections to terrorist groups, or communicable diseases, the applicant can be cleared for entry to the United States. The entire admissions process generally takes between eighteen months and two years to complete.

The three primary federal government agencies involved in the refugee resettlement process are the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The State Departments Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) is the first U.S. government point of contact; it coordinates the process with all other agencies until a refugee is resettled.

Through its Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) branch, DHS is the principal agency responsible for vetting refugee applicants; USCIS makes the final determination on whether to approve resettlement applications. Its security review uses the resources and databases of several other national security agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, Department of Defense, and multiple U.S. intelligence agencies.

Once settled in the United States, refugees are generally in the hands of charity and other volunteer agencies that specialize in resettlement, such as the International Rescue Committee. The State Departments Reception and Placement Program provides funding to go toward refugees rent, furnishings, food, and clothing. After three months, this responsibility shifts to HHS, which provides longer-term cash and medical assistance, as well as other social services, including language classes and employment training. After the Trump administrations cuts to the refugee admission ceiling, all nine nongovernmental agencies that assist with resettlement downsized by closing offices or laying off staff.

Several intergovernmental organizations play a crucial role at various points. The United Nations is primarily responsible for referring qualified applicants to U.S. authorities, while the International Organization for Migration coordinates refugees travel to the United States.

Today, refugees are resettled in forty-nine U.S. states, though there are several states that generally resettle higher numbers than others. According to the Migration Policy Institute, California, Washington, and Texas took in the highest number of refugees in fiscal year 2020, making up 27 percent of all refugee admissions that year. Between fiscal years 2010 and 2020, one-third of all 601,000 resettled refugees went to just five states.

The logistics of refugee resettlement are largely handled by nine domestic resettlement agencies, many of them faith-based organizations such as the Church World Service and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Representatives of these organizations meet and review the biographical data of the refugees selected by the State Departments Refugee Support Centers abroad to determine where they should be resettled. As part of this process, federal law requires that resettlement agencies consult with local authorities [PDF], including law enforcement, emergency services, and public schools.

While this consultation is required, the 1980 Refugee Act gives the federal government final authority over whether to admit refugees and where they should be resettled. In the wake of the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, which were carried out by EU citizens who may have returned to Europe from the Middle East via refugee flows, more than thirty U.S. governors protested the resettlement of any Syrian refugees in their states. Legal experts say that while states cannot directly block federal government decisions on where to place refugees, they can complicate the process by directing state agencies to refuse to cooperate with resettlement agencies, as the governors of Texas and Michigan did in 2015.

Out of the more than three million refugees accepted by the United States over the past four decades, a handful have been implicated in terrorist plots. According to a 2016 study by the libertarian-leaning CATO Institute, of the 154 foreign-born terrorists who committed attacks in the United States since 1975, twenty were refugees. Of these attacks, only three proved deadly, and all three took place before 1980, when the Refugee Act created the current screening procedures.

Many of those responsible for recent attacks have been U.S. citizens, including the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooter, one of the perpetrators of the 2015 San Bernardino attacks, and the 2009 Fort Hood shooter. The 9/11 hijackers were in the country on tourist or business visas. Others were the children of asylees, including the 2016 Manhattan bomber, whose father had been an Afghan refugee, and the Tsarnaev brothers, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing and whose parents fled war-torn Chechnya.

Trump administration officials often voiced concerns over the vetting process for incoming refugees. But Biden and other critics condemned Trumps rhetoric as scaremongering, and Biden campaigned on restoring U.S. leadership on global refugee resettlement. In February 2021, as part of his administrations plan to rebuild and enhance the countrys refugee program, he pledged to improve USRAP vetting to make it more efficient, meaningful, and fair.

Follow this link:
How Does the US Refugee System Work? - Council on Foreign Relations

Biden is creating the worst illegal immigrant crisis ever – Fox News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

America's border security is about to go from terrible to the worst it has ever been.

The number of illegal aliens who crossed into America in 2021 was an all-time record at over 2 million. President Joe Biden's reckless immigration policies in his first year have led to the most lawless southern border in decades. And while Border Patrol's daily illegal alien apprehensions are already very high, the Biden regime is about to blow the hinges off the doors for a wide-open border with catastrophic consequences for American sovereignty and rule of law.

TEXAS GOV. TO DROP OFF MIGRANTS IN DC AFTER CHAOS FROM BIDEN'S POLICIES

Border Patrol agents work a checkpoint at an entry near the Del Rio International Bridge. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images) (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

With the White House's recently announced decision to end Title 42 Authority -- a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regulation that allowed a portion of illegal migrants to be expelled from U.S. soil during the COVID pandemic -- the ongoing flood of illegal migrants is about to turn into a tsunami. This will also cause a surge in the criminal trafficking of opioids across the southern border, at a time when the U.S. is already suffering over 100,000 overdose deaths a year.

In the first six months of fiscal year 2022, there have already been one million migrant "encounters" (the preferred DHS euphemism for apprehended illegals) at the southern border. The current rate of Border Patrol apprehensions -- around 8,000 a day -- is already well-beyond their maximum capacity of 5,000.

In just more than a month's time, DHS officials are estimating there could be up to 18,000 illegal migrants apprehended at the southern border every day. Based on migrant flows already gathered or underway, there could be close to a million illegal migrant border crossings within six weeks of Title 42 ending.

If the surge of illegal migration is even close to this level, it will completely overwhelm the system. Border Patrol will be stretched beyond the breaking point. Every aspect of immigration enforcement at America's border with Mexico will be in a frenzied triage mode.

And it appears that is exactly the Biden plan: let migrants flood the system. Biden's administration simply does not want to stop the flow of illegal migrants -- in fact, the Left wing of the Democrat Party is in staunchly in favor of illegal migrants entering the country at will. Every immigration policy decision they make points in this direction.

Biden came into office calling for a 100-day moratorium on all deportations. Over the past year, interior enforcement of immigration laws has been almost entirely turned off, part of the systematic abuse of executive branch "prosecutorial discretion." President Biden chose to end the "Remain in Mexico" policy of his predecessor, President Trump, which had proven effective in re-establishing control of the border from illegal migrants' rampant abuse of American asylum laws.

The Democrat base simply wants the status quo to continue, in the hopes that soon a massive amnesty will create millions of new Democrat voters. But the American people are still -- by strong majority -- opposed to illegal immigration, which means the Biden administration will be focused on optics control at the southern border. They won't stop the illegal migrant flow, they will try to hide it, with plenty of help from their allies in the media.

The Biden White House isn't worried the constant mockery that they make of our immigration laws. They choose that. What concerns them is the possibility of another 15,000-person convoy -- perhaps many of them at once -- camping out at our southern border and demanding entry into the U.S.

While DHS monthly apprehension numbers look bad, massive crowds of illegals on tv -- some literally wearing "Biden" t-shirts as they attempt an end-run on our immigration laws -- leaves a truly lasting impression on voters.

YUMA, ARIZONA - DECEMBER 07: Immigrant men from many countries are taken into custody by U.S. Border Patrol agents at the U.S.-Mexico border on December 07, 2021 in Yuma, Arizona. Most had come with their families through a nearby gap in the border wall in previous days to seek political asylum in the United States. Women and children were transported to processing facilities first. Border Patrol detention facilities in Yuma were overwhelmed with thousands of new arrivals, with many families trying to reach U.S. soil before the court-ordered re-implementation of the Trump-era Remain in Mexico policy. The policy requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico for the duration of their U.S. immigration court process. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images) (John Moore/Getty Images)

Democrats are heading into what will likely be a disastrous midterm election, and illegal immigration is consistently a top-level concern in national polling. So the Biden-Democrat plan is going to be making the entry of illegals into the U.S. as seamless (and invisible) as possible.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Once Title 42 is gone and the expected avalanche of illegal migrants begins next month, they will deploy additional DHS resources and assorted bureaucrats not to protect American sovereignty at the border, but to aid in its systematic violation.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

An overwhelmed Border Patrol will be forced to use "alternative to detention" processes to bring in -- and then set free -- anyone who enters illegally and does not pose an immediate security risk. Most illegals will be told, on a version of the honor system, to show up once on U.S. soil and enter themselves the immigration system. It's a de facto open border, and an absurd proposition.

Biden and the Democrats may not believe in our own national borders, but most Americans still do. The lawlessness is only going to get worse unless the Democrats are made to fear an electoral annihilation this November. That reckoning must emerge, or our southern border will disappear.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM BUCK SEXTON

View original post here:
Biden is creating the worst illegal immigrant crisis ever - Fox News