Practical Business English

General principles:

Respect the reader. Be clear. Be direct. Be brief. Extra words and unclear words waste time.

Put the reader first. Consider what the reader needs and wants. Write to meet those needs and wants. Then stop. Remember you do not charge by the word.

Think about why you are writing. If writing to inform, inform. If writing to ask, ask. If writing to persuade, persuade. If writing to thank, thank. The best way to express thanks in English is to write, “Thank you.” Do not waste time writing about what a pleasure it has been or how grateful you are. Get to the point and write, “Thank you.” If you want to add something, write, “Thank you for the opportunity.” Or “Thank you for your kindness.” Or “Thank you for your assistance.” But do not add extra words. Sorry for the extra ones in this paragraph.

Write with purpose. Be serious. What and how you write affects your reputation. Remember this especially when you write e-mails from a business account. E-mail is often informal. However, even with informal communication, strive to be professional. Many companies have policies regarding e-mail. Learn those policies and follow them.

Seek and encourage criticism. Ideas improve with criticism. Writing improves with criticism as well. Consider every critic of your writing an extra pair of eyes. Those eyes may see something your eyes do not see. Be grateful for assistance and teamwork.

Review and revise everything you write. This will help you be clear, direct and brief. Write short paragraphs and focus on main ideas. Rewrite 20-word sentences into 15-word sentences, 15-word sentences into 12-word sentences and 12-word sentences into 10-word sentences. Choose the right words. Precision in language leads to precision in thought. Write well and you will think well.

Follow these principles and you will write good e-mails, letters, reports, memos, power point presentations, analyses, etc. in English. There are exceptions to most rules and principles. Nevertheless, when you want to break a rule, think carefully about the reason. Unless the reason is compelling, do not break the rule.

Thank you for reading this.

Following are some useful words and phrases.

Connecting words:

Conjunctions are: and, but, or, nor, for, yet, so

Conjunctions can join two sentences. Use a comma between the end of the first sentence and the conjunction.

Examples:

The season presents opportunity, and we have prepared to act.

We have prepared to act, but we must wait for the right time.

This is a difficult time, so we must work harder.

Some conjunctive adverbs are: however, therefore, nevertheless, consequently, furthermore, additionally

Conjunctive adverbs can join two sentences. The traditional structure requires a semicolon (;), but you will be understood if you use a period after the first sentence and begin the next sentence with the conjunctive adverb followed by a comma (,).

Examples:

The season presents opportunity. Furthermore, we have prepared to act.

We have prepared to act. However, we must wait for the right time.

This is a difficult time. Therefore, we must work harder.

As you may see from the examples, “and” is similar to “furthermore”; “but” is similar to “however”; and “so” is similar to “therefore.” Remember that all of these words are used to connect ideas. Some other connecting words are: additionally, besides, similarly and while

Other:

Making goals in writing and business will help your performance. Begin with basic structures. As you advance in English, you may not learn many more ideas, but you will learn many more ways to express ideas. Furthermore, you will become more precise with language.

Reading will improve your writing. Through reading, you will become more familiar with the structure of English. In addition, you will increase your vocabulary.

Please ask me any questions you have about this.

Thank you again for reading this.

And the final rule is: be nice.

Hope all goes well for you.

Mark

Federal authority over immigration

Authority over immigration is federal. This is based on Constitutional powers as interpreted by the Supreme Court: naturalization (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), foreign commerce (A1, S8, C3) and sovereignty (various Constitutional principles including the necessary and proper clause [A1, S8, C18]).

There is an inherent sovereign power to regulate international affairs. It breaks legal doctrine and stretches credulity to argue that individual states should have power over international borders.

States can complement national laws, not substitute for them. Utah politicians have suggested various proposals to address undocumented aliens in the state. Some deal with enforcement while others deal with benefits. Federal law would preempt most, if not all, of these proposals.

State action would be costly, misguided and disruptive. Reform must be national. It should flow from good public policy not politics.

Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York (Sup. Ct. 1875)

State restrictions on immigration infringe the federal power over foreign commerce.

The Chinese Exclusion Case 130 U.S. 581 (1889)

“In December, 1878, the convention which framed the present Constitution of California, being in session, took this subject up and memorialized Congress upon it, setting forth in substance that the presence of Chinese laborers had a baneful effect upon the material interests of the state, and upon public morals; that their immigration was in numbers approaching the character of an Oriental invasion, and was a menace to our civilization; that the discontent from this cause was not confined to any political party, or to any class or nationality, but was well nigh universal; that they retained the habits and customs of their own country, and in fact constituted a Chinese settlement within the state, without any interest in our country or its institutions, and praying Congress to take measures to prevent their further immigration.”

The power of exclusion of foreigners is an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States (paraphrased).

De Canas v. Bica 424 U.S. 351 (1976)

The power to regulate immigration is unquestionably a federal power though not every state enactment which deals with regulation is preempted by the constitutional power (paraphrased).

Fronteras inteligentes: DREAM for the future

Fronteras inteligentes: DREAM for the future

DREAM for the future

A story is told of a young man making a small fortune. He has a luxury car, a big home and a nice lifestyle. Listeners are struck by an apparent tone of dismay. One inquires. The storyteller responds, “The young man is making a small fortune out of a larger one.”

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (“DREAM Act”) would give conditional immigration status to undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. before the age of 16, lived in the U.S. for 5 consecutive years, earned a U.S. high school diploma or its equivalent, are less than 35 years old at the time of enactment and are of good moral character

Qualifying people would have to register and within 6 years complete 2 years of higher education or military service. Those who satisfied the requirement could apply for legal permanent residence five and a half years after enactment of the DREAM Act. Those who did not satisfy the requirement would be disqualified.

Opposition to the DREAM Act generally centers on the inconsistency of providing a path to residence for the undocumented or on the military provision. To the first group, does it make sense to stand against undocumented youth of good moral character? To the second group, here are words from an undocumented student (“DREAMer”) that convinced me: “We, the DREAMers, want this for our brothers, our sisters and ourselves. Leaders need to do more to encourage people to stay in school so that the military route is less appealing.”

Beside arguments concerning law, logic, statistics, etc., the words of the DREAMers are plain and powerful:

“We are all humans and immigrants in this world.” –V

“Education opened our eyes without giving us any solution.” –L

“I worry every day about the possibility that ‘la migra (ICE)” will break up the life of my family.” –N

“I felt proud until I started feeling like a criminal by applying for a job, scholarships and financial aid.” –A

“I have become an American in every way but citizenship.” –G

“I know that I deserve all the rights that come with a little card and a nine-digit number” –I

“However hard I have tried to be American, I have never been seen as American.” –D

Our society is frustrated over federal failures concerning immigration policy in law and practice. The debate is polarized and polarizing.

On November 1, The Salt Lake Tribune reported on a commissioned poll. Polling numbers indicated that 59 percent of Utahns supported a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The same poll indicated 60 percent support for requiring police officers to check legal residency upon reasonable suspicion after an arrest or traffic stop.

This inconsistency indicates a difficult challenge; however, we cannot afford to pass over the DREAM Act once again. A society seeking better fortune for itself should stand with DREAMers of good moral character seeking to do the same.

Immigration reform: beyond games

Immigration: toward reform

Authority over immigration is federal. It is based on the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions and largely derives from powers over naturalization, foreign commerce and sovereignty.

States can complement national laws, not substitute for them. Utah politicians have suggested various proposals to address 110 thousand undocumented aliens. Some deal with enforcement while others deal with benefits. Federal law would preempt most, if not all, of these proposals.

A Utah solution, described as a “carrot-and-stick approach,” is unwise for legal, societal and fiscal reasons. The unfortunate metaphor offends on a literary and intellectual level. Are the governor and legislators talking about animals?

Reform must be national. It should flow from good public policy not politics.

Congress refuses to address immigration reform. No longer should we wait for concrete proposals. The broken system requires an overhaul.

Official immigration statistics indicate that sixty-six percent of immigrants come through family categories, 12 through job categories and 22 through other. This is more complex in practice. Family-based immigrants work, and employment-based immigrants have families. Wise reform would match these percentages to economic and societal needs.

The currents system dates to 1965. It should be updated. Categories for spouses, minor children and elderly parents should be preserved. Other categories such as adult children, siblings, etc. should become part of an immigration formula. Family relationships should count but not be determinative.

The employment-based system favors highly-skilled immigrants. Our economy needs workers across all skill levels. The formula should respect that.

The number of visas should rise and fall with economic strength. Industries with labor shortages should get special consideration. Good immigration policy would stimulate the economy.

The formula for evaluating candidates should include occupation, a job offer, experience and family ties. It should balance the interests of global competitiveness and family unity.

Immigration reform must deal with undocumented aliens. Almost 11 million live here. The number is worrisome. They will not simply disappear.

Mass deportations are neither realistic nor wise. Punitive laws will not serve as a solution. We will not make our lives better by making others’ lives worse.

Undocumented aliens who pay a reasonable fine, put their taxes in order, have a clean criminal record and demonstrate good intentions, like knowledge or study of English, should have an opportunity for lawful status.

Last year, the U.S. spent 11.5 billion dollars on customs and border protection. Absolute border security would be extraordinarily expensive and probably impossible. Strategy should focus on criminal activity and serious threats.

Undocumented aliens generally come here for jobs. A genuine employment verification system would work more effectively for far less money than a militarized border to deter undocumented immigration. Besides, many undocumented aliens today enter with visas then overstay.

The employment verification system makes mistakes. It identifies documented workers or citizens as potentially undocumented. It fails to detect some types of fraud. Reform should correct these errors and strike a balance between the need for an individual identifier, privacy concerns, efficiency and accountability for employees and employers.

We must adapt our static immigration system to the needs of a dynamic society. Political responsibility is not exclusive to politicians: all of us have responsibility—even the undocumented.

Arizona Light (Arizona Ligero)

“’Este no es ‘Arizona Light,’” dijo el representante estatal Stephen Sandstrom (Orem, Utah) después de destapar su “Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act” (Acta para hacer cumplir las leyes en contra de la inmigración ilegal) como propuesta para el estado de Utah.

Quiere decir: “Esto es ‘Arizona Light.’”

Arizona Light es una copia de SB1070 de Arizona, congelada por un juez federal. La propuesta revela más que el afán de copiar: revela un desconocimiento de las leyes de Utah.

La Sección 76-9-1008 de Arizona Light es una copia casi completa de la Sección 63-99a-104 de SB81, que fue aprobada en le legislatura de Utah en 2008 y que entró en vigor el 1 de julio 2009.

Tres posibilidades:

1. Sandstrom no conoce las leyes de Utah.

2. Sandstrom cree que imitar es la manera más sincera de alabar.

3. Sandstrom ni escribió ni leyó ni revisó su propia propuesta.

Algunas comparaciones con SB1070 de Arizona:

1. La policía tiene que chequear el estatus migratorio después de una parada, detención o arresto legal cuando existe la sospecha razonable de que la persona parada, detenida o arrestada no tiene un estatus migratorio legal.

2. Se prohíbe la discriminación en base a la raza, el color o la nacionalidad.

3. Por parte de un extranjero, no llevar documentos que indican su estatus legal.

4. Creación del derecho de demandar a las agencias del gobierno que limitan la ejecución de las leyes federales de inmigración.

5. Frustración y desesperación sobre la inacción del gobierno federal en inmigración.

Arizona Light tiene menos palabras que SB1070 de Arizona. No tiene proscripciones contra los jornaleros y los que se aprovechan de su labor.

Arizona Light no tiene una declaración de la intención legislativa. SB1070 tiene la intención de “hacer atrición a través de aplicación de la ley la política de todas las agencias gubernamentales a nivel estatal y local en Arizona.” Es decir, la ley quiere castigar la población indocumentada de una manera fuerte, hasta cruel, para forzar la deportación por voluntad propia de todos los indocumentados.

Arizona Light ha alterado SB1070 para intentar ser constitucional. La constitucionalidad se podría argumentar, pero la propuesta seguiría siendo mal planteada. La reforma migratoria por ley y por lógica tiene que ocurrir a nivel nacional.

Arizona Light sería costoso, divisorio y disruptivo para Utah.

Nos enfrentamos desafíos en la educación, la salud y la economía. Mejor dedicar nuestro esfuerzo en esos campos.

El desafío de la reforma migratoria

Ya ha empezado la conversación sobre la reforma migratoria. Debería haber debate en el congreso de E.U.A. dentro de poco. Vale la pena protegernos, informarnos e involucrarnos.

Protegernos: Nadie debería pagar por adelantado un proceso que no existe en la realidad sino en el futuro. En años anteriores durante los debates sobre la reforma, algunos han pagado por procesos que solo existen en teoría. Mejor guardar el dinero en tu propia cuenta bancaria u otro fondo para poder pagar por el proceso verdadero después de la implementación de la reforma. Habrán organizaciones con y sin fines de lucro dispuestas a ayudar en ese momento.

Informarnos: El desafío de la reforma migratoria se puede describir con tres preguntas.

1) ¿Cómo debería el gobierno de E.U.A. estructurar su sistema para los que quieren entrar a E.U.A.?

2) ¿Qué mecanismos debería utilizar E.U.A. en las fronteras y dentro del país para mejorar el cumplimiento con las leyes y el respeto por el sistema?

3) ¿Qué debería hacer E.U.A. con los 12 millones de indocumentados que residen en el país?

Opino que los mejores argumentos son los que enseñan la buena voluntad de todos de trabajar en un proyecto común. Aparte, y como en cualquier país de un grado u otro, al final el dinero manda. La inmigración documentada o no suele llevar consigo prosperidad económica. El inmigrante contribuye con sus ideas, esfuerzo y buena voluntad. Vale la pena pensar en ejemplos y contarlos.

Involucrarnos: Los que tienen ciudadanía deberían votar y llamar a sus representantes para expresar sus deseos de una reforma migratoria que trataría con respecto y dignidad a todos, incluyendo a los indocumentados. Los que tienen la residencia debería pensar en conseguir la ciudadanía para poder votar. Escrito eso, yo personalmente entiendo perfectamente que la ciudadanía estadounidense no es el deseo de todos. He vivido en España, Inglaterra y México y guardo cariño por los tres países (Más por supuesto a España y México). La ciudadanía es una decisión personal; sin embargo, piénsalo. Los que están aquí de paso o como indocumentados pueden involucrarse de otras maneras. Para todos, el ejemplo es fundamental. Esforzándonos juntos y sin recriminaciones, podemos conseguir mucho. Y en el esfuerzo, empezaremos a vivir mejor.