Oyemykke Vows To Help VeryDarkMan Recover Stolen ₦180m NGO Funds
Achyuta Samanta, the founder of Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) and Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS), felicitated Sunelita Toppo with cash award for winning Gold medal with the Indian Women’s Hockey Team at the 8th Asian Champions Trophy 2024 recently. Achyuta Samanta felicitated Sunelita Toppo on the occasion of the 4th annual convocation of KISS Deemed to be University with a cash award of Rs 2 lakhs for her achievement. Samanta also assured to provide Rs 25,000 monthly scholarship to support Toppo’s nutritious diet and other requirements until she achieves her dream of 2028 Olympic success. Sunelita Toppo is a first-year BA student of KISS institute. She was the only player from Odisha to be included in the Indian Women’s Hockey Team to play the 8th edition of the Asian Champions Trophy. In the final, they defeated China1-0 to be crowned in the Champions Trophy held at Rajgir of Bihar from November 11 to 20. Hockey India also had declared a reward of Rs 3 Lakh each for all players and Rs 1.5 Lakh each for all support staff. As the only player from Odisha, she has made us all proud. Announced a cash award of ₹2 lakhs for this achievement and a ₹25,000 monthly scholarship to support her nutritious diet and other requirements until she achieves her dream of 2028 Olympic success. Best wishes to you! — Achyuta Samanta (@achyuta_samanta)TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republicans made claims about illegal voting by noncitizens a centerpiece of their 2024 campaign messaging and plan to push legislation in the new Congress requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Yet there's one place with a GOP supermajority where linking voting to citizenship appears to be a nonstarter: Kansas. That's because the state has been there, done that, and all but a few Republicans would prefer not to go there again. Kansas imposed a proof-of-citizenship requirement over a decade ago that grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory. The law, passed by the state Legislature in 2011 and implemented two years later, ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. That was 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn't been enforced since 2018. Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rare risks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote. The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, championed the idea as a legislator and now says states and the federal government shouldn't touch it. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Schwab, a Republican. “It didn’t work out so well.” Steven Fish, a 45-year-old warehouse worker in eastern Kansas, said he understands the motivation behind the law. In his thinking, the state was like a store owner who fears getting robbed and installs locks. But in 2014, after the birth of his now 11-year-old son inspired him to be “a little more responsible” and follow politics, he didn’t have an acceptable copy of his birth certificate to get registered to vote in Kansas. “The locks didn’t work,” said Fish, one of nine Kansas residents who sued the state over the law. “You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.” Kansas' experience appeared to receive little if any attention outside the state as Republicans elsewhere pursued proof-of-citizenship requirements this year. Arizona enacted a requirement this year, applying it to voting for state and local elections but not for Congress or president. The Republican-led U.S. House passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer and plans to bring back similar legislation after the GOP won control of the Senate in November. In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state revised the form that poll workers use for voter eligibility challenges to require those not born in the U.S. to show naturalization papers to cast a regular ballot. A federal judge declined to block the practice days before the election. Also, sizable majorities of voters in Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and the presidential swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin were inspired to amend their state constitutions' provisions on voting even though the changes were only symbolic. Provisions that previously declared that all U.S. citizens could vote now say that only U.S. citizens can vote — a meaningless distinction with no practical effect on who is eligible. To be clear, voters already must attest to being U.S. citizens when they register to vote and noncitizens can face fines, prison and deportation if they lie and are caught. “There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, the leading sponsor of the congressional proposal, said in an email statement to The Associated Press. After Kansas residents challenged their state's law, both a federal judge and federal appeals court concluded that it violated a law limiting states to collecting only the minimum information needed to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. That's an issue Congress could resolve. The courts ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, Kansas couldn't justify a law that kept hundreds of eligible citizens from registering for every noncitizen who was improperly registered. A federal judge concluded that the state’s evidence showed that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote from 1999 through 2012 — an average of just three a year. In 2013, then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican who had built a national reputation advocating tough immigration laws, described the possibility of voting by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as a serious threat. He was elected attorney general in 2022 and still strongly backs the idea, arguing that federal court rulings in the Kansas case “almost certainly got it wrong.” Kobach also said a key issue in the legal challenge — people being unable to fix problems with their registrations within a 90-day window — has probably been solved. “The technological challenge of how quickly can you verify someone’s citizenship is getting easier,” Kobach said. “As time goes on, it will get even easier.” The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Kansas case in 2020. But in August, it split 5-4 in allowing Arizona to continue enforcing its law for voting in state and local elections while a legal challenge goes forward. Seeing the possibility of a different Supreme Court decision in the future, U.S. Rep.-elect Derek Schmidt says states and Congress should pursue proof-of-citizenship requirements. Schmidt was the Kansas attorney general when his state's law was challenged. "If the same matter arose now and was litigated, the facts would be different," he said in an interview. But voting rights advocates dismiss the idea that a legal challenge would turn out differently. Mark Johnson, one of the attorneys who fought the Kansas law, said opponents now have a template for a successful court fight. “We know the people we can call," Johnson said. “We know that we’ve got the expert witnesses. We know how to try things like this.” He predicted "a flurry — a landslide — of litigation against this.” Initially, the Kansas requirement's impacts seemed to fall most heavily on politically unaffiliated and young voters. As of fall 2013, 57% of the voters blocked from registering were unaffiliated and 40% were under 30. But Fish was in his mid-30s, and six of the nine residents who sued over the Kansas law were 35 or older. Three even produced citizenship documents and still didn’t get registered, according to court documents. “There wasn’t a single one of us that was actually an illegal or had misinterpreted or misrepresented any information or had done anything wrong,” Fish said. He was supposed to produce his birth certificate when he sought to register in 2014 while renewing his Kansas driver's license at an office in a strip mall in Lawrence. A clerk wouldn't accept the copy Fish had of his birth certificate. He still doesn't know where to find the original, having been born on an Air Force base in Illinois that closed in the 1990s. Several of the people joining Fish in the lawsuit were veterans, all born in the U.S., and Fish said he was stunned that they could be prevented from registering. Liz Azore, a senior adviser to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said millions of Americans haven't traveled outside the U.S. and don't have passports that might act as proof of citizenship, or don't have ready access to their birth certificates. She and other voting rights advocates are skeptical that there are administrative fixes that will make a proof-of-citizenship law run more smoothly today than it did in Kansas a decade ago. “It’s going to cover a lot of people from all walks of life,” Avore said. “It’s going to be disenfranchising large swaths of the country.” Associated Press writer Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.
Ebola: How a vaccine turned a terrifying virus into a preventable disease | CNNHow to watch Minnesota Vikings vs. Seattle Seahawks: TV channel, streaming infoGeode Capital Management LLC grew its holdings in Bank First Co. ( NASDAQ:BFC – Free Report ) by 3.7% in the third quarter, according to the company in its most recent Form 13F filing with the SEC. The firm owned 222,204 shares of the company’s stock after acquiring an additional 7,922 shares during the quarter. Geode Capital Management LLC owned 2.22% of Bank First worth $20,158,000 as of its most recent SEC filing. A number of other hedge funds and other institutional investors also recently made changes to their positions in BFC. Quest Partners LLC grew its holdings in shares of Bank First by 65,700.0% during the 2nd quarter. Quest Partners LLC now owns 658 shares of the company’s stock worth $54,000 after purchasing an additional 657 shares in the last quarter. Arizona State Retirement System raised its position in Bank First by 5.5% during the second quarter. Arizona State Retirement System now owns 2,554 shares of the company’s stock valued at $211,000 after purchasing an additional 133 shares in the last quarter. PDT Partners LLC bought a new stake in Bank First during the third quarter worth $306,000. SG Americas Securities LLC boosted its holdings in shares of Bank First by 91.7% in the 3rd quarter. SG Americas Securities LLC now owns 3,696 shares of the company’s stock valued at $335,000 after purchasing an additional 1,768 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Mercer Global Advisors Inc. ADV grew its position in Bank First by 30.7% in the second quarter. Mercer Global Advisors Inc. ADV now owns 5,268 shares of the company’s stock valued at $435,000 after acquiring an additional 1,237 shares during the last quarter. 29.95% of the stock is currently owned by institutional investors and hedge funds. Bank First Trading Down 1.6 % NASDAQ:BFC opened at $98.67 on Friday. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.02, a quick ratio of 1.00 and a current ratio of 1.00. The firm has a market cap of $987.88 million, a P/E ratio of 12.12 and a beta of 0.34. The firm’s fifty day moving average is $101.78 and its 200-day moving average is $92.51. Bank First Co. has a 52 week low of $74.90 and a 52 week high of $110.49. Bank First Increases Dividend The company also recently declared a quarterly dividend, which will be paid on Monday, January 6th. Shareholders of record on Monday, December 23rd will be issued a $0.45 dividend. The ex-dividend date of this dividend is Monday, December 23rd. This represents a $1.80 annualized dividend and a yield of 1.82%. This is a positive change from Bank First’s previous quarterly dividend of $0.40. Bank First’s dividend payout ratio is presently 22.11%. Analysts Set New Price Targets Separately, Piper Sandler lifted their price target on Bank First from $99.00 to $104.00 and gave the company a “neutral” rating in a research note on Thursday, October 17th. View Our Latest Stock Report on BFC Bank First Company Profile ( Free Report ) Bank First Corporation operates as a holding company for Bank First, N.A. that provides consumer and commercial financial services to businesses, professionals, consumers, associations, individuals, and governmental authorities in Wisconsin. It offers checking, savings, money market, cash management, retirement, and health savings accounts; other time deposits; certificates of deposit; and residential mortgage products. Featured Articles Five stocks we like better than Bank First What is a Dividend Harvesting Strategy and How Can Investors Profit from it? Buffett Takes the Bait; Berkshire Buys More Oxy in December Market Cap Calculator: How to Calculate Market Cap Top 3 ETFs to Hedge Against Inflation in 2025 What Are Treasury Bonds? These 3 Chip Stock Kings Are Still Buys for 2025 Want to see what other hedge funds are holding BFC? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for Bank First Co. ( NASDAQ:BFC – Free Report ). Receive News & Ratings for Bank First Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Bank First and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .
Some tech industry leaders are pushing the incoming Trump administration to increase visas for highly skilled workers from other nations. Related Articles National Politics | In states that ban abortion, social safety net programs often fail families National Politics | Court rules Georgia lawmakers can subpoena Fani Willis for information related to her Trump case National Politics | New 2025 laws hit hot topics from AI in movies to rapid-fire guns National Politics | Trump has pressed for voting changes. GOP majorities in Congress will try to make that happen National Politics | Exhausted by political news? TV ratings and new poll say you’re not alone The heart of the argument is, for America to remain competitive, the country needs to expand the number of skilled visas it gives out. The previous Trump administration did not increase the skilled visa program, instead clamping down on visas for students and educated workers, increasing denial rates. Not everyone in corporate America thinks the skilled worker program is great. Former workers at IT company Cognizant recently won a federal class-action lawsuit that said the company favored Indian employees over Americans from 2013 to 2022. A Bloomberg investigation found Cognizant, and other similar outsourcing companies, mainly used its skilled work visas for lower-level positions. Workers alleged Cognizant preferred Indian workers because they could be paid less and were more willing to accept inconvenient or less-favorable assignments. Question: Should the U.S. increase immigration levels for highly skilled workers? Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy YES: Innovation is our superpower and it relies on people. Sourcing talent from 8 billion people in the world instead of 330 million here makes sense. Nearly half our Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Growing them also relies on expanding our skilled workforce. The cap on skilled-worker visas has hardly changed since the computer age started. With AI on the horizon, attracting and building talent is more important than ever. Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research YES: After years of openly allowing millions of undocumented entrants into the country, why is there controversy over legally increasing somewhat the number having desirable skills? Undocumented immigration significantly impacts lower skill level jobs and wages competing with domestic workers at every skill level. Why should special cases be made against those having higher skills? Could they just not walk across the border anyway, why make it more inconvenient to those with desirable skills? James Hamilton, UC San Diego YES: Knowledge and technology are key drivers of the U.S. economy. Students come from all over the world to learn at U.S. universities, and their spending contributed $50 billion to U.S. exports last year. Technological advantage is what keeps us ahead of the rest of the world. Highly skilled immigrants contribute much more in taxes than they receive in public benefits. The skills immigrants bring to America can make us all better off. Norm Miller, University of San Diego YES: According to Forbes, the majority of billion-dollar startups were founded by foreigners. I’ve interviewed dozens of data analysts and programmers from Berkeley, UCSD, USD and a few other schools and 75% of them are foreign. There simply are not enough American graduates to fill the AI and data mining related jobs now exploding in the U.S. If we wish to remain a competitive economy, we need highly skilled and bright immigrants to come here and stay. David Ely, San Diego State University YES: Being able to employ highly skilled workers from a larger pool of candidates would strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. companies by increasing their capacity to perform research and innovate. This would boost the country’s economic output. Skilled workers from other nations that cannot remain in the U.S. will find jobs working for foreign rivals. The demand for H-1B visas far exceeds the current cap of 85,000, demonstrating a need to modify this program. Phil Blair, Manpower YES: Every country needs skilled workers, at all levels, to grow its economy. We should take advantage of the opportunity these workers provide our employers who need these skills. It should be blended into our immigration policies allowing for both short and long term visas. Gary London, London Moeder Advisors YES: San Diego is a premiere example of how highly skilled workers from around the globe enrich a community and its regional economy. Of course Visa levels need to be increased. But let’s go further. Tie visas and immigration with a provision that those who are admitted and educated at a U.S. university be incentivized, or even required, to be employed in the U.S. in exchange for their admittance. Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates NO: While attracting high-skilled immigrants can fill critical gaps in sectors like technology, health care and advanced manufacturing, increasing high-skilled immigration could displace American workers and drive down wages in certain industries. There are already many qualified American workers available for some of these jobs. We should balance the need for specialized skills with the impact on the domestic workforce. I believe we can begin to increase the number of visas after a careful review of abuse. Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth YES: We should expand skilled visas to drive innovation and economic growth. Individuals who perform high-skilled work in labor-restricted industries or graduate from respected colleges with relevant degrees should be prioritized for naturalization. We depend on immigration for GDP growth, tax revenue, research, and so much more. Despite the abhorrent rhetoric and curtailing of visas in the first term, I hope the incoming administration can be persuaded to enact positive changes to a clearly flawed system. Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health YES: But it should be based upon need, not politics. There are several industries that have or could have skilled workforce shortages, especially if the next administration tightens immigration as promised and expected. Over the years, there have been nursing shortages that have been met partially by trained and skilled nurses from other countries. The physician shortage is expected to get worse in the years to come. So, this visa program may very well be needed. Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere NO: While skilled immigration could boost our economy and competitiveness, the U.S. should prioritize developing our domestic workforce. Hiring foreign nationals in sensitive industries or government-related work, especially in advanced technology or defense, raises security concerns. A balanced approach could involve targeted increases in non-sensitive high-demand fields coupled with investment in domestic STEM education and training programs. This could address immediate needs while strengthening the long-term STEM capabilities of the American workforce. Not participating this week: Alan Gin, University of San DiegoHaney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers AssociationRay Major, economist Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com . Follow me on Threads: @phillip020