Example Of Immigration Compliance Plan: Fill & Download for Free

Lol, just what should have happened - nothing))) The law turned out to be ineffective and unfinished. Rather, the law on hectares of land in the Far East turned out to be incompletely inscribed in the already existing legislative scheme on land. This led to confusion. People expected to use this land as their personal manor, but in reality it turned out to be land for business. You cannot even build your own home on this earth. For business only. Moreover, you have a short time frame - only five years - to present the first results of the business. Initially, this project was advertised as personal land for family use .... In short, the state and people did not understand each other. About 80 thousand people used their right to receive free land in the Far East, but now half of them want to return it to the state or register it differently so that this land can be used as their manor. This is not at all the result that the Government was counting on. The program assumed that residents of Western Russia would go to the Far East, but this did not happen, except for isolated cases. Basically, the program was used by local residents who lived here even before receiving the land and were not going to leave anywhere in any case. It's just helping local businessmen and that's all.The free land program in the Far East covers the entire Far Eastern Federal District, which significantly exceeds the geographical territory of the Far East.«Гектарщики никому не нужны». Чем обернулось для россиян получение дальневосточного гектара - an article in Russian about the results of the program.I suppose you do not know the history of the settlement of Siberia by Russians at all. There were 6 waves of immigrants (+1 preceding wave):0 - until 1581, 13-16 centuries (resettlement to Siberia before its annexation to Russia).These were people who left Russia for the Golden Horde, these were merchants and monks who were looking for secluded places. The first monasteries in Siberia were built long before the annexation of Siberia to Russia. With the Golden Horde, Russia had complex political and active economic relations.1 - after 1581 to 1825.During this period, Siberia was annexed to Russia in 5 years, and thousands of new Russian settlements - villages and cities - appeared here. The first factories, mines, universities, hospitals, monasteries also appeared here. At the beginning of the 18th century, the approximate population of Siberia was 300 thousand people; by the beginning of the 19th century, the population of Siberia was 2.5 million people.2 - 1650s and laterIn Russia, the ROC split. After the reform of religion, the majority of the population began to use the new rules in the church service (new rite), a minority of the population continued to use the old rules (old rite). The leaders of the Old Believers were famous princes with a long lineage, and they enjoyed considerable authority among the population. The government decided to forcibly evict from Western Russia to Siberia, along with the peasants who belonged to them as property. This is how Old Believers appeared in Siberia. This is the Russian version of the Amish. The rest of the Low-born Old Believers left for Siberia voluntarily - they did not want to fall under sanctions and preferred to support their leaders, who were revered as saints.“The Angarskaya Village Museum” clearly shows how the first Russian villages in Siberia looked like:3 - from 1825 to 1917.This is the period when the Government of Tsarist Russia actively fought against revolutionary movements in Russia and the states belonging to the Russian Empire (Poland and others). All political opponents, terrorists, active supporters of the overthrow of the tsar were sent into exile. Link is a forced settlement in Siberia. At the same time, the exiles continued to freely move around the settlement, could work and engage in public activities. For people caught in economic crimes or crimes against human life, ordinary Russian prisons operated in the form of villages, where there is production, as a rule, harmful to health.4 - 1906-1917The period of the reforms of Prime Minister Stolypin, who allowed the free distribution of land to all landless peasants from Western Russia. The peasants could take for themselves any amount of land that they could cultivate on their own. By the end of 1917, the population of Siberia was 8.5 million.Siberian city Irkutsk and its suburbs before the revolution:5 - 1930-1940sA network of prisons known as the GULAG was built in Siberia. The name is not accurate, as it came from fiction. The gulag is a prison administration that has always been located in Moscow and has never been located in Siberia. Now it is called the FSIN (Federal Penitentiary Service). Prison networks in Siberia were replicas of the system developed during the years of Tsarist Russia. The quality of the prison directly depended on the severity of the crime committed. If the crime was easy, then the punishment was simply living in a Siberian village. Your family could have come to you to live together. If the crime was serious, then the punishment was in a maximum security prison, where there was a lot of security and you could not move freely around the prison. You could have meetings with your family, but you could not live together. If the crimes were very serious, then your sentence was execution. This was done in Moscow, in Siberia, no one has ever used executions. The duty of prisoners to work has not been canceled; they continue to work today. To be honest, the myth about the Gulag is pretty boring - it is a product of American propaganda and the disidency of fiction, this does not correspond to reality at all.On average, the number of prisoners in Russia is constant, and ranges from 500 to 800 thousand people. This figure has not changed since the 19th century. But in 1930-1940 it increased to 0.9-1.1 million people. The peak was in 1937, when the figure for the first time in history exceeded 1 million people and reached 1.1 million people, but in 1939 it decreased again and became less than 1 million.For comparison, the number of prisoners in the United States is stable at an average of 2-2.5 million people in the 20th century, but in the 21st century, since George W. Bush, this figure has reached 3 million, and reached a record figure under Barack Obama of 3.5 million. Now the number of prisoners in the United States is constantly holding at 3-3.5 million people. This significantly exceeds the performance of Russia, and even Stalin's record in 1937.6 - 1950-1980sThis was the period when young people from all over the USSR traveled to Siberia en masse for the industrial development of Siberia. Tens of thousands of industrial enterprises, thousands of cities and universities, hospitals, schools, roads, and all the necessary infrastructure for a comfortable stay in this climate were built. The population of Siberia has increased to 42 million people.Now the population of Siberia has decreased by about 5%, because after the collapse of the USSR, some migrants left for their countries of the ex-USSR, and some of the Russian migrants who came here during the 6th wave of resettlement also returned to their native land. The rest remained, since they consider only Siberia to be their native land.The government proposed a program of free land for Russian citizens in the Far East, following the example of Stolypin's reform of 1906, but the results were not as impressive as they expected. There are several reasons:1. modern Russians are mainly urban residents (urbanization 75%), while Stolypin's contemporaries were rural residents (urbanization less than 10%). The villagers were familiar with village life and agricultural production. Modern townspeople who move to the countryside do not know anything about this, and are not ready to put up with temporary difficulties and the lack of a developed infrastructure at the place of residence and work.2. Stolypin proposed to give land to families, regardless of how the land will be used. At that time, there were simply no numerous regulatory laws. The state was only interested in the fact that there were no revolts against the tsar and that the peasants had any land to feed them. They were happy if one of the peasants began to pay taxes from trade, but they did not demand it.In modern Russia, you cannot build a house on your plot of land if you do not have permission from two dozen institutions for this. Land in the Far East can only be used for business, and you cannot even build your own house on it. In five years, you are obliged to start paying taxes, and the state will regularly check the sources of your income, all tax reports to look for errors or hidden income, as well as state structures will check the compliance of your business with all the rules, regulations and regulations.If Stolypin had offered land in Siberia on such terms, I'm afraid most of the peasants would not have thought of doing it.3. Modern residents dream of living on land, but they do not strive for farming. Many of them have freelance income from the Internet or gamble on the stock exchange, or run their business remotely, living very far from the location of their business.What do these people need? Maximum internet speed, maximum comfort, maximum nature and minimum of people and harmful urban ecology. Everyone wants to live in the forest, admire the beautiful nature, have a beautiful sea view, have easy access to the benefits of civilization, and a minimum of communication with government agencies.What did the Government offer these people? Life is like at the beginning of the 20th century, hard work, maximum pressure from government agencies and a minimum of comfort.Yes, the state and the people definitely did not understand each other ... Stolypin's ideas in this form no longer work. People want manors, but not farms.

I think it would be sensible for the government to produce a White Paper. It doesn’t need to set out one outcome and can examine several.The Treasury Select Committee is currently taking evidence on possible Brexit outcomes and I expect it to also produce a report in due course. Having watched some of the evidence given, I can only comment that the current discourse on Brexit is being conducted in an almost total vacuum of facts. Negotiating these things is immensely complex with lots of detail which never gets an airing in the popular media. For example - if the UK is not part of the single market/EEA (i.e. trades with the single market) every truck will need to be stopped at the single market border, its contents checked, the documents relating to the compliance of the goods to single market standards examined and verified, even if there is not one penny of tariff to be paid. This will be a huge non-tariff barrier.I don’t think a White Paper needs to give away the UK’s negotiating position, but the framework we are aiming for is important and I doubt that MPs would vote to allow Article 50 to be triggered unless the broad objective is outlined.I would hope that any such White Paper would also cover the UK’s Industrial Policy as a Trade Plan without one is meaningless.Also, I would hope that a plan for immigration would be thought out. It is sad that the UK has decided to leave the EU to get back control of immigration when, since the UK joined the EEC as it was then, the UK has been in exactly the same position vis-a-vis immigration and yet now blames the EU for the fact that the UK has made “wrong” decisions (as assessed by the population) as regards immigration. There is nothing inside the EU that says a country must be one based on high immigration and the fact we have high immigration now is purely the result of UK government decisions.

Odd that you would choose examples from three different countries, all of which offer “free” healthcare and free education. Some countries like France might have generous retirement but it’s all sucked out in taxes. Nothing is truly free.That said, we must consider the price/value dynamic. Suppose healthcare in the US cost 25% less than it currently does on average, but 100% of Americans are covered with good quality plans. Is that a good thing?Well, sure! Right now we pay almost double (80% more) than the next-highest cost industrialized country with below average morbitity and mortality results. So a 25% discount AND including all Americans would be a pretty good deal, right?There’s no reason not to do it. Oh, except for one: a bunch of congressmen whose campaign donations come with a promise to not touch the corporate insurance structure. And one other thing: a bunch of obeisant enablers that have been reduced to paranoiac blobs of compliancy. “Fear the government!” voters that keep electing politicians that long ago sold out to their contributors.Education? The cost of a community college education to anyone who wants one will repay itself with a better-educated, more literate population, educated in next gen technologies that represent our future economy.You know how we talk about robotics and AI? Somebody’s gotta design that stuff! Engineers of every type will be required. That’s hard to do without an opportunity to get a start.I have a Canadian friend who finished his master in engineering from the University of Toronto - all free. He started here with Sony, then Qualcomm, now with AT&T. My question is, why would they hire a Canadian (or Indian, or Chinese…?) The answer is that there aren’t enough qualified Americans. Getting people started in the United States would completely change the texture of immigration as well.