It is possible to pass comprehensive immigration reform within Obama’s first or second year Congress needs to realize that our economic woes are directly linked with our workforce, and our workforce is made up of immigrants (both legal and illegal).
Obama has stated that America has nothing to fear from today’s immigrants. Immigrants hope that in America, they will build better lives for their families. Like the many immigrants that came before them and the Hispanic Americans whose families have been here for generations, the recent arrival of Latino immigrants will enrich America.
The president also said that getting new immigration laws passed will be difficult. Because the U.S. economy is in worse shape than two and three years ago, when immigration bills failed in Congress, he said it would be even more difficult to pass immigration reform now.
However, Obama suggested that pro-immigrant organizations to propose ideas on how to pass the reform through Congress. Also, before concentrating on immigration reform, he will focus on improving the system for legal immigration.
Since Obama took office, and in the middle of the economic crisis, pro-immigrant advocates have been waiting to hear concrete news from the White House on when the administration will begin to move forward on immigration reform. During his presidential campaign, Obama had said he would address the issue during his first year in office.
Economic difficulties cannot be solved without tackling the immigration problems like increasing work visa and legalizing the undocumented workforce. These immigrants contribute enormously to our economy by spending in our consumer market as well as contributing their skills and labor. You can reach the immigration attorney at http://www.sunglaw.com
Related posts:
- How would you feel if this Immigration Law was U.S. Policy?
- In Canada — Best time to send in-land immigration forms post-common-law status?
- What laws does the United States currently have in place to control immigration?
America and you will not be punished but you will be rewarded? Why should Americans be put in prison for violating laws when the Mexicans are rewarded? To say the President is being blackmailed by the Mexican president to allow this because his family is up here as illegal immigrants, what kind of sense does this make?
You are right, our votes don’t count and now they will count less. Wonder what the mexican president would think if Americans started crossing the border and demanding rights. I am talking large enough amounts of Americans with lots of publicity crossing the border in massive groups? Will Americans not stand together to demonstrate fairness? If one of us get’s shot and we happen to be smoking pot, do we not deserve amnesty ? Some day Americans are going to have to stand up for what they believe in or bend over and kiss their a**** good bye.
Related posts:
- How do Americans feel knowing our president supports industry and hiring illegals, and defying wage laws?
- Making Money With Liberty Reserve.This Teaching Is For Free Just For U
- Law Teaching in Tourism of Argentina
What are these new attorney-client matching services? Who are the players? What do they cost? What is the risk to me? What is the return for me? What is the buzz on them? Are they ethical as marketing for law firms? Will they save me money and are they for me? Will they get me clients I would not have otherwise? The answers to these questions was begun in Part 1 which focused on the facts of this marketing for law firms vehicle. This article, Part II, gives you “the rest of the story” as Paul Harvey would say.
Conclusions and Recommendations on Attorney-Client Matching
Let me list my current thoughts/conclusions in this marketing for law firms niche of attorney-client matching services and from there it is up to you to make your decision:
1.This marketing for law firms vehicle clearly has some merit. This approach can deliver business to you that you would not get otherwise and get it to you now. Yes, you can do better and at least arguably cheaper for yourself through the right Internet attorney marketing strategies (see my website). However, it is not going to happen tomorrow and attorney-client matching can happen tomorrow. You can build your own systems while using these systems and then decide if you want to continue their systems or not. They will always probably get some business you would not have gotten otherwise even if you had your own online systems.
2.Unfortunately you are only “renting” the methods used to get the business you are being sent and don’t “own” the business methods used. If you had the correct Internet marketing for law firms system up you would have a salable asset in those systems and be driving traffic exclusively to you, which is better than this option almost certainly in the long run for most if not all attorneys. Additionally, as a general principle it is not good to be dependent on any one source of referrals as I am sure you know. That said I still think attorney-client matching services are a good option before you have your own Internet marketing systems and/or other marketing systems up. You may even want to continue these services after you have your own systems up. Having your own systems up makes you more secure and now you are at choice about staying with the service or not.
3.Who is this marketing for law firms vehicle for really?
a.Someone who needs more business right now. These systems have a stream of business coming right now and they can send it your way right now. Other attorney marketing systems will take some time to make happen and yield results.
b.Someone who is very, very clear they don’t want to be involved in the marketing process and are willing to pay someone else to do it for them even if it costs them more and they are “renting”. If that is you, then this is probably a good move for you. That said, you still are going to have to “close” the client they send you via email or on the phone so you are going to be involved in marketing at that level, just less marketing. You are never going to get away from that aspect unless you are an associate who does nothing but technical work in someone else’s practice (not that there is anything wrong with that).
c.Someone who is doing some attorney marketing that is not working for them or not working very effectively for them since if you stop what is not working and do this type that is working you may be able to reduce your marketing costs while increasing your revenue stream.
d.Finally, a partner level attorney who has a senior associate that has good people skills that could work this marketing for law firms vehicle and close the referred clients.
4.Who is this type of attorney marketing not for?
a.Someone who won’t attend to the referrals from the matching service most if not nearly every working day.
b.Someone who does not have fair to good “closing skills” or “bedside manner” (Note: you can get some coaching from these firms to improve this aspect if needed and/or see my website for more information on this skill set). You are not the only attorney getting the referral from the match firm so you need to “shine” well enough to get hired. There is still an element of competition involved with maybe 3 to 5 other attorneys who got the same referral.
c.Someone in a geographic area that does not generate a lot of referrals in your practice area. Like a rural area or small town or maybe an estate planner in a low-income area. So you see this marketing for law firms vehicle is not for everyone.
5.The negative information on LegalMatch and CasePost is somewhat troubling to me even though much of it is from the past and has been positively addressed. The negative information of the past on LegalMatch appears to have not troubled the Utah Bar, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. This is reassuring to me.
6.If you were reasonably sure this type of vehicle is for you I would go with LegalMatch first. I am presuming you are willing to work their system diligently and have at least low average “closing” skills (they will work with you to get your closing ratio up if you need some support in that area). Why LegalMatch? They have over 1500 members currently (a good sign I think), over 90 employees and have been in business longer. I figure that gives them an edge in knowledge, results and staying in business over time. Additionally, their “footprint” of bringing business to their members is almost certainly larger since they have more resources to drive business to their site than the others. If for some reason you are uncertain if this type of marketing for law firms is for you then I would go with LegalFish first. Why LegalFish? The LegalFish option would allow you to get into this marketing for law firms arena now with less expense and less risk than LegalMatch or CasePost. Do realize the LegalFish attorney marketing “footprint” is going to be much smaller than either of the other two services so they won’t be sending as large a volume of business your way almost certainly. Do be sure you have in your agreement with LegalFish that they will not charge you for the months they do not send you business. If you had a good experience working the referrals from LegalFish, diligently worked the system almost daily, realized a good return on your investment and you wanted to do more then I would look into LegalMatch next. Either starting with LegalMatch or LegalFish, if you find that you really liked this approach to marketing for law firms there is nothing wrong with belonging to two or even three of the services.
7.If you decide to become a member with LegalMatch, Case Post and/or LegalFish do remember your financial arrangement and term of membership are somewhat to greatly negotiable. Do negotiate a win/win agreement for yourself. Naturally, if you can get references of current members to contact from them in your practice area and in a similar type market to yours so much the better before you sign your agreement.
8.I probably would not go with Lawyers dot com at this point. Why? First, no guarantee. Next Lawyers dot com does not appear to me to be promoting that part of the site enough. Additionally, I am not sure it is worth the cost of the bio and the fee that together will run at least $2,400 for the year. I suspect this money could be better put to use with one of the “big three”. Lastly, given the consumer has a list of attorneys that could be large (search on the site for your zip code and practice areas and see how large it is for your area) you are going to be in a crowd I fear. Thus it looks like not much business and it seems no way to impact the consumers’ thinking in your direction at the point where they are selecting who to contact. An exception to this thinking is if you already have a bio listing with them (and it is delivering business to you) this add on service might be a useful attorney marketing move given you are only spending $495 more per year. That said keep good records and see if it produces you any business. If not you would stop the service of course.
9.With respect to LegalConnection dot com I probably would not go with them at this point. Why? No guarantee. I do see it as an advantage that it is a stand-alone away from the FindLaw site. For that reason alone I would favor it over Lawyers dot com, however, I don’t see LegalConnection or Lawyers dot com as being in the same class as the “big three” at this point in time.
Related posts:
- When You Need an Attorney, Use an Online Lawyer Directory to Find Law Firms and Attorney Listings
- Legal Marketing - How To Get Top Dollar For Your Services
- Prepaid Legal Services Network Marketing Review
Introduction
We think Tourism represents a great deal for any state strategical development. We believe its diffusion and awareness must be so much present in formal as in informal education; thus, we will take over the law teaching issue in higher levels and oriented to tourism students.
From a historical perspective, it is not wrong to assert that Tourism syllabi, in South America in general and in our country in particular, are fairly new. And therefore the reflection on it remains, from a scientific point of view, in an embryonic state.
So recent is it that the UBA has not been able (neither it did not want to, nor has it not been allowed) to include a university academic offer . The first dilemma of the touristic career (still under debate) has been whether Tourism Ph.B., which comprehends hotel Management knowledge should be set forth, or it should be dealt with as two separate Ph.Bs with a common trunk. Although it is not our purpose to elucidate such an enigma, it is important to emphasize it, since it directly affects on any juridical subject content we should try to introduce.
We would also like to clear up that, previous to any discussion and for market reasons, Universities have come across the disjunctive as to incorporate careers related to hospitality industry into their faculties or departments. The second question was then: Where? Thus, some universities, chose a humanistic perspective and added them to their social sciences faculties . Others, from a more technical view, tended to attach them either to their Statistics department , or to the Geography department . The newest ones decided to create independent departments or faculties , others submitted their location to structural causes . And finally, there were institutions who, from an interpretation closer to management, set them in the Economics environment ; situation which, by the way, coincides with our country’s political definition .
But if it was such a problem to set the Tourism Ph.B. at Social Sciences Faculty, none the less problematic was it to set a Law subject into the respective Ph.B. degrees (Hotel Management or Tourism).
From the curricular layout beginnings, it seemed obvious that the normative subject, which gave unity to the whole vision of professional future, could not be absent from the sector’s regulatory frame. And although, to some extent, almost everyone agreed to set this knowledge in the last career grades, the main issues every subject should be based on were not usually dealt with, i.e.: What is taught?; how is it taught?; and what for?
No wonder just until a few years ago one could take any university program and notice that its core themes were some sort of fast and summarized Civil Law course, with some reference to Hotel Management laws and travel agencies. Nothing more contradictory or detached from the content, skills and appreciations students should incorporate during this stage of development. The underlying idea seems to have been: “Should there be a Law subject, we do not know how or what for; then let the lawyer who gives it place its content”. And thus we have seen such nonsense as Tourism students trying to elucidate the right-possessor’s degree in a complex succession, or wondering about the differences between divorce and de facto separation or the like. Posed this way and stating the obvious, the experience has become frustrating for everyone.
It is not difficult to think this problem could be avoided, had they taken similar and tested pedagogical experiences as reference. Such as, for example, Law teachers from Economics and vice versa who long ago had to work getting over this kind of obstacles for the sake of a holistic vision.
The Law is not some panacea for all sector’s evil, nevertheless it soothes, modulates and directs them. And since we are dealing with a transverse activity as Tourism, it is sensible insert this subject at the end of the academic studies. The Law will work as an engine or as a hindrance, depending on how we build it as participating citizens.
WHAT
Following the test period two inquiries were made: 1) Is there some subject we can call: “Tourism Law” or are we just facing one of the many activities which require some specific regulation? And, after that 2) from which content should the very subject layout spring?
For the first question some authors (they certainly followed the Saxon Travel Law trend of thought) risked the first hypothesis focusing on the “travel agent” actor as the main generator of new contractual figures, so Puig andVitta were able to assert the existence of a “…Tourism Law which is no longer framed in the traditional Civil or Commercial Law matrixes that is only partially concealed by the Navigation Law in both its species aerial and maritime”. Nevertheless, we think that in order to define the autonomy of a branch of the Law, it is necessary to discover whether the principles which govern it are axiologically original so that they make up a complete and closed systematic juridical construction, and make it unnecessary to appeal to the principles of another branch .
As we can see, the debate, still open, goes beyond an academic whim; since whether we choose one posture or the other it will suit the curricular development.
The second question also had dissimilar answers;
1) some understood they should assume students counted or should count on a solid civic formation which allows them to fully go into the different meanings of the law.
2) others proposed that although this was what “it should be” it was not what they perceived within the classroom; therefore the proposal was to “recover” the knowledge to frame the activity. That is to say, I can not develop or expose the “Law” theme if the student lacks the basic notions of “State”, “Nation”, etc…
3) a minority (probably more pressed by a limited time schedule than by curricular academic needs) tended to go straight to content nucleus; mentioning maybe during the process, but leaving it to the student’s initiative, the reconstruction task or the basic concepts incorporation.
HOW
Avoiding the pedagogical debate on whether content determines methodology or not; let’s admit at least they condition it. From our point of view, there are three factors that help in the way of teaching:
A) Teacher’s formation; the subject as given by lawyers bears their formation’s virtues and faults. This is because there are few or no Tourism and Law specialization courses; therefore this demand can not be reached with foreign proposals which obviously suit their own country’s legislations.
B) The institutional. In a structural sense on two levels;
1) From a macro-level variables can be:
i. “time schedule”,
ii. “duty”,
iii. “Level” (University or Further Education) will operate as filter and selection when it comes to establishing curricular priorities and
iv. “Setting” the career regarding the faculty or department it belongs to. Put in other words: if the tourism Ph.B. belongs to a Natural Sciences faculty or department its subject content in general, and the juridical ones in particular can be different from another one which belongs to an Economics faculty.
2) “Institutional culture” also prevents the subject from being dealt with as a water-tight box, but be into gear with others which are a key issue in the global problem interpretation. Thus Tourism Policies, Social Tourism, Programmed Learning, etc. feed and are fed by the normative.
C) The Political. Programs can not merely be a laboratory’s production, or a more or less lucid result of a couple of professionals´ experience. They should be a scientific and academic production reflecting and framed into a wider and serious political proposal, and giving the sector a real “state policy” status, highly above occasional speech and in harmony with the OMT directives to which we belong.
To sum up: The strategies we have been looking through are diverse and deserve to be considered without dogmatism, as follows:
1) Several European programs in general and Spanish ones in particular have dealt with the issue from the different Law branches, so it is not odd to find a “Tourism Private Law” or a “Tourism Public International Law”, etc.
2) In our country, following our treatise writer’s tradition, some have established a General Part and a Particular Part; it is as much as saying that while the first one involves the subject’s founding concepts, the second one aims at the specific themes (Hotel Management, agencies, etc.)
3) Some teachers have focused on Law transmission, others have thought of the traditional case method and some of us have opted for mixed techniques.
4) But even if it is difficult to know where to start from, so it is to know where to arrive at. We have seen some complex proposals including trade issues, such as “Time shares”, which although they are closely connected to the touristic phenomenon, it is not thus since they compel us to long juridical considerations in order to comprehend them all. In other proposals it is worrying the lack of themes such as “Natural and Cultural Heritage” by understanding they exceed the required for the professional formation. We shall disagree with such an opinion, since we consider it axial in the subject into which every notion of “sustainability” fits.
WHAT FOR
“First in the intention, last in the execution”, as the old saying goes. The what-for-answer is usually given in that which some teachers call “objectives”, nevertheless most of the times its formulation may be so open and general that it produces ambiguity.
Who utters this first statement? Who outlines each subject’s objectives? : the University. How? Going to the polls with the teacher, with the specialist (or at least they should) Where? In the subject’s outline first, and in the general incumbencies afterwards. Why? By proxy.
With a dubious legislative technique, the 24.521 Higher Education Law, in its 42nd Article speaks of “competences” and delegates their resolution to university institutions. This has produced a chaos of overlapping careers (e.g. Guides) or confusion (e.g. between Tourism Ph.B and hotel Management Ph.B.). This could be solved just by declaring the career of “public concern”. This status compels both the Ministry of Education as well as the Council of universities to specify any careers professional incumbencies. Thus, giving some part to the CONEAU (National Commission of Evaluation and University Accreditation) in the institutional qualification, misleading academical offers could be avoided and the profession would be appraised as of those proposals having the minimum required quality. (That is why, no matter how difficult state supervision is for the private sector, several universities have been struggling for the career to be declared of “public concern”).
As verbally expressed, the somehow shared objectives (neither exclusive nor excluding) arising from the different programs are:
Cognitive:
1) To master the Law basic concepts
2) To relate the different social types with any enterprise’s juridical frame
3) To analyze jurisprudential cases
Procedural:
4) To diagnose responsibility regulations in particular situations
5) To decide whether to appeal to the judicial system and/or to the alternative systems of conflict solution
6) To apply and cooperate with the making of the different sector’s contract modalities
Appreciative:
7) To show interest in the cultural and natural heritage
8) To work interdisciplinary
9) To show respect for the rules
Sitting from the other side, students also have their own perception on the different answers. They usually give us some hints in the annual poll (always so significant):
A) For life
B) For the completion of my professional formation
C) For determining whether I will need a lawyer or not
D) For being able to count on another management tool
As we can see and despite generalization, institutions and students are not (at least on this point) so disconnected. Civic knowledge is indeed useful and necessary at any instance of citizenship, but in the context of a Tourism career it becomes unavoidably instrumental.
Thus, such an activity, intended to be a model and a development impeller, implies respect for the regulatory frame it is embedded in. Not because (as we said at the beginning) it is going to solve its problems, but because any activity dealt with a “fair play” has greater growth opportunity and generates inversion.
OUR PROPOSAL
- We think it should be talked about a Tourism Applied Law from a multiplicity of actors;
- That certain real deficiencies students normally “drag” from Technical school should be replaced, and therefore this requires an average time schedule;
- That as long as we invest on research, it will be possible to develop subject content;
- That it is necessary to generate academic forum and a courses offer which allows the completion of teacher formation lawyers need to give a multidisciplinary approach;
- That curricula must, without losing originality, integrate with the State’s general planning; and this planning should also articulate with the OMT guidelines;
- That the Tourism Ph.B. career should be proposed as of “public concern”, giving it study level hierarchy and removing shady-zones from its “competences”.
Related posts:
- Information of Hotel Industry Laws in India - Part1
- What are the current laws on teaching evolution or intelligent design in public schools?
- Legal Assistant Education – Requirements to Become a Paralegal