It’s not racist to screen out migrants who’ll be a burden? but as per catholic boy andrew cuomo cannot screen out christian bettors from nassau otb, nassau county republican leader joseph g cairo otb president
Preservationist surges back to win the Suburban Stakes at Belmont Park
Coglianese PhotosPreservationist Turns Back Catholic Boy in Suburban
Claude Solnik
Long Island Business News
2150 Smithtown Ave.
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779-7348
Home > LI Confidential > Stop scratching on holidays
Stop scratching on holidays
Published: June 1, 2012
Off Track Betting in New York State has been racing into a crisis called shrinking revenue. Some people have spitballed a solution: Don’t close on holidays.
New York State Racing Law bars racing on Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday, and the state has ruled OTBs can’t handle action on those days, even though they could easily broadcast races from out of state.
“You should be able to bet whenever you want,” said Jackson Leeds, a Nassau OTB employee who makes an occasional bet. He added some irrefutable logic: “How is the business going to make money if you’re not open to take people’s bets?”
Elias Tsekerides, president of the Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York, said OTB is open on Greek Orthodox Easter and Palm Sunday.
“I don’t want discrimination,” Tsekerides said. “They close for the Catholics, but open for the Greek Orthodox? It’s either open for all or not open.”
OTB officials have said they lose millions by closing on Palm Sunday alone, with tracks such as Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise and Hawthorne running.
One option: OTBs could just stay open and face the consequences. New York City OTB did just that back in 2003. The handle was about $1.5 million – and OTB was fined $5,000.
Easy money.
The 6-year-old son of Arch won a grade 2 event in his July 6 stakes debut at Belmont.
but are sikh's educable, ignorant or stupid about ny const art 1 sec 3 and the history of the catholic church
it looks that way.
Sikh community celebrates law banning religious garb discrimination
August 13, 2019
ASSEMBLYMEMBER DAVID WEPRIN WITH SIKH COMMUNITY MEMBERS. EAGLE PHOTO BY RACHEL VICK.
By Rachel Vick
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, nationality or sex — but it wasn’t until last week that New York took steps to end workplace discrimination based on religious attire or facial hair.
On Aug. 9, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the Religious Garb Bill, which prohibits discrimination based on religious attire after years of advocacy by religious organizations, including members of the Sikh community.
Assemblymember David Weprin and Senator John Liu sponsored the bill. They joined local lawmakers and advocates of various races and religions at the Sikh Cultural Society in Richmond Hill on Tuesday to celebrate the new law.
Weprin highlighted a recent increase in hate crimes, including the recent attack against a Hindu priest in Glen Oaks, and said the bill was a “great victory against hate and discrimination.”
“Finally in a state as diverse as ours, people of faith no longer have to choose between their religion and their jobs,” Weprin said.
Weprin told the story of Kevin Harrington, a Sikh man who wore a turban and a long beard who worked as an E train conductor during 9/11. He was given the choice of wearing the MTA logo on his turban or being removed from public work, Weprin said.
The Religious Garb Bill was first introduced in 2011 but failed to pass the state Senate until the past legislative session. The bill will ensure that people like Harrington no longer face choices based on their religious clothing or customs.
Councilmember Adrienne Adams and Assemblymembers Mike Miller, Alicia Hyndman and Daniel Rosenthal also attended the event and praised the new law.
“Part of why this is so important is because if you look around Queens, you see how diverse we are, how our brothers and sisters make the fabric of this area that much greater,” Hyndman said.
Harpreet Singh Tour, former president of the Sikh Cultural Society, said he and other members of the South Asian community were excited and grateful that the bill passed.
“It’s really hard to make people understand the issues but [Weprin] got it from day one, and he took it to heart,” Tour said. “In the Senate we had that issue, they weren’t getting it. This year [Liu and other representatives] turned the Democrats into real Democrats.”
Liu spoke last, reflecting the community members’ sentiments on the importance of the legislation and adding that he was frustrated the bill didn’t become law in previous legislative sessions.
“The Sikh community, who has routinely encountered discrimination for their turbans and facial hair, no longer has to accept this outright bias, as a part of their everyday lives,” Liu said. “Especially now, where bigotry is at a fever pitch in our country, New York must stand united and lead in our tolerance and inclusion of people of all faiths.”
The law goes into effect on Oct. 9.
“They did their part now it’s up to us to take the next steps. If you see any discrimination based on appearance, based on religious attire you need to speak up,” said District Leader Dr. Neeta Jain. “Do not be silent.”
Last week’s mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, has sent public discourse about immigration off the rails.
It has allowed radicals to frame as racist normal law enforcement activities and immigration rules. We saw this in New York recently, with anti-ICE protesters stopping traffic on the West Side Highway and holding sit-ins at an Amazon store to protest the company’s compliance with immigration rules.
In the left’s telling — and it’s increasingly hard to distinguish the hard left from the soft — the administration and those who support it are no better than the insane white nationalist who committed the El Paso atrocity.
Similar hysteria has greeted a new Trump administration regulation governing legal immigrants’ access to public welfare. The New York Times depicted the new rule as part of an effort by the president and his hard-line immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, to “shift” the demographic makeup of newcomers to the country.
Under the new rule, those who are in the country legally will have a more difficult time obtaining green cards or gaining citizenship if they received food stamps, housing assistance, Medicare or other public benefits.
But the outrage about this rule, which is set to go into effect in 60 days, is overblown. Even in the era of mass immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries, those who came here had to promise not to become a “public charge” upon the United States.
That meant immigrants pledged to work and/or could look to sponsors who would guarantee their support.
The idea of restricting immigration to those who could work is an old one. The federal Immigration Act of 1882 was the first US law to specifically insist that immigrants who couldn’t take care of themselves would be excluded.
That “public-charge” principle has been part of every subsequent federal statute on the subject. The landmark 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act liberalized the system, but it nevertheless allowed for the deportation of immigrants who became public charges within five years.
Moreover, far from being a Trump innovation, the likelihood of needing government assistance is already grounds to deny an immigrant a green card or citizenship.
What is different is that this rule broadens the definition of a public charge. Instead of being defined as receiving welfare payments, it will now also include the myriad benefits available under the ever-expanding welfare state that exists in the 21st century.
Critics complain that this will discourage legal immigrants from seeking assistance that they might need. But the Trump administration wants to shift our immigration system to one based on merit, like the ones that reign in Canada and many European countries.
As with every other debate, however, liberals are turning this into a question of race and identity. Trump, they argue, wants to make it harder for immigrants from non-white countries.
But the story of immigration to the United States has always been about people of every race, color and creed who come here to work and take advantage of American freedoms and opportunity — not a desire to take advantage of the welfare state.
This isn’t about race, Trump’s irresponsible comments about wanting people from Norway and not s- -thole countries notwithstanding.
Even if you don’t share administration hard-liners’ desire to cut back legal immigration, emphasizing merit is a common-sense concern that is supported by most Americans. Our culture is rooted in self-sufficiency and individual initiative. Our immigration system should reflect our national creed.
The devil is in the details in a regulation that is a staggering 837 pages long and that lists factors that will either negatively or positively affect the decisions of officials about granting green cards and eligibility for citizenship. It should be enforced in such a way that will not penalize those who came here to work and fell on hard times for reasons not of their own making.
It isn’t surprising that those who advocate open borders and wish to abolish ICE would also oppose public-charge laws. But it ill behooves those who claim to champion the rights of immigrants to take a stand that essentially demands that Americans to go along with prioritizing the needs of newcomers.
To maintain America’s pro-immigration consensus, immigration must be seen as about opportunity — not welfarism.
Jonathan Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org and a contributor to National Review. Twitter: @JonathanS_Tobin
No comments:
Post a Comment