Fil-Ams hail Obama’s visit to the PH in October

A+
A
A-

SMILES AT THE SUMMITRY Presidents Aquino and Obama are photographed here in the 2011 Asean Summit in Bali, Indonesia. They will meet again at the 2013 Apec, and on Oct. 11-12 here in Manila, which the US president is visiting for the first time. MALACAÑANG PHOTO

WASHINGTON, DC–The national umbrella group of Filipino American organizations welcomed the news of President Barack Obama’s visit to the Philippines on October 11 and 12.

“For many centuries, Filipinos have been part of American history,” says National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA) national chairman Ed Navarra. “His visit coincides with the celebration of Filipino American History month.”

Navarra adds, “President Obama has many reasons to be proud of our community’s many significant contributions to our nation.  And we will continue to play a vital role in shaping this country’s future.”

Now nearly four million strong, Filipinos in America are a growing political force. They voted in large numbers in the last presidential election, comprising the second largest Asian American group to cast their ballots.

Spurred by the overwhelming support of Hispanic and Asian Americans, President Obama delivered on his promise to push for comprehensive immigration reform this year.

“We are encouraged by the president’s determination to fix our country’s broken immigration system,” Navarra says. “We continue to hope that Congress will do its part to make immigration reform a reality and move this nation forward to greater prosperity for all Americans.”

Navarra also thanked President Obama for directing the Interagency Working Group, through the White House Commission on Asian Pacific Islander Americans, to address the issue of Filipino World War II veterans and their claims under the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund.

There are several bills introduced in the House, which would direct the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to review more than 4,000 claims that have been rejected because of eligibility issues.  “We are hoping for a legislative remedy so that eligible veterans who have appealed receive their rightful benefits,” Navarra said.

Navarra points out further that the Filipino American community in the US continues to help the Philippines not only because of sentimental attachments but because they want to see their mother country achieve economic progress.

Every year, several community organizations send medical and humanitarian missions to towns and barrios in the Philippines, fund sustainable projects, and invest in scholarships, schools and other forms of long-term assistance.

 

Related Stories:

Obama visit seen to boost security ties mid China row

Obama to visit PH, other Southeast Asian countries amid sea rows

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • INQ_reader

    No doubt, Obama is pushing for something useless in the on going review of VFA. Unless there is a categorical statement from US that they will defend the Philippines vs the territorial intrusions of China, any agreement is useless. All those talk about terrorists, etc. are not of a priority to the Philippines.

    • crazy_horse_101010

      HAWHAWHAW like you would ever know.

      • Abnoy Golum Aquino

        Even Filipino WWII Veterans should not expect anything. As the Washington DC Star says, Filipinos are “treacherous, arrogant, stupid and vindictive, impervious to gratitude, incapable of recognizing obligations. Centuries of barbarism have made them cunning and dishonest. We cannot safely treat them as equals, for the simple and sufficient reason that they could not understand it. They do not know the meaning of justice and good faith. They do not know the difference between liberty and license…. These Filipinos must be taught obedience and be forced to observe, even if they cannot comprehend, the practices of civilization.”

      • crazy_horse_101010

        i notice you never give dates just statements and the papers name so what date was it in this century, and have you read what papers have said about americans or imperial americans has they call it and that is now. and what people say about whitely azzed americans here or dirty azzed americans or smelly azzed americans or what tagalogs say about cebuanos . i have read that tagalogs think cebuano women ugly and the men are lazy and stupid. and papers here call tagalogs and manila imperialists. and tagalogs get everything and they get nothing. so practice what you preach this isnt 100 years ago it is today. the last papers you quoted were over 100 years old and the people you quoted have been dead for years

    • freedom of navigation

      You don’t expect responsible leaders to issue provocative pronouncements. They speak in a responsible manner. You could only expect them to issue statements like this: ” “We resolve to… strengthen the Southeast Asia security environment in a manner that protects the interests of all who value unimpeded commerce transiting through the maritime domain, while deterring those who would restrict it or act in a manner that might place it at risk.”
      Btw, what is driving you to seem to repeatedly question US’ sincerity to defend PH? Is it because deep down inside of you, you actually believe it? or is it because your purpose is to persuade Pinoys to believe that a bully is a nice neighbor?

      • INQ_reader

        “…unimpeded commerce transiting through the maritime domain…”

        This is not about territorial intrusion of Philippine territory nor EEZ. If military or commercial ships can pass through the South China Sea notwithstanding Chinese intrusion in Philippine EEZ, then this statement is fulfilled. US is hands off in any other issues.

        I keep on repeating it because it’s the truth. US chickens out, err, does not take sides in a territorial issue.

      • freedom of navigation

        The Philippines EEZ is part of south east asia so you can’t exclude it from the meaning of the statement they issued:”strengthen the south east asian security”
        US won’t “chicken out”. no superpower can match the mobility and power of US stealth jet fighters even if it does not use its naval superiority.

      • INQ_reader

        If your argument is correct, then US should be driving out the Chinese who are now intruding into Bajo de Masinloc and some of Spratley’s Islands. As other people said (but not me) there is already the MDT and VFA that should guarantee US’ help to the Philippines vs Chinese territorial intrusion.

        But US is not helping. Therefore, what US has been saying all along is true, i.e. US does not take sides in a territorial issue.

        Another point, you seem to (deliberately?) missed the part of the statement “in a manner that protects the interests of all who value unimpeded commerce transiting through the maritime domain..” Without the statement that you missed, the meaning is so general that it would seem like US will help us in all aspects of security, including territorial intrusion of the Chinese. But that is not correct. US is only focused on freedom of navigation, nothing more.

      • freedom of navigation

        It’s because you only care about your opinion. You don’t think the overall peace & order in order of the region which is the general concern of almost everyone else. Don’t you worry, US in coordination with PHL has wide variety of options to end the dispute in peaceful resolution where some of it has been put in place like PHL has already lodged complaint before the UN arbitration tribunal and there other measures to do until the cobwebs in irrational mind finally get out of the way. As for MDA or VFA it’s better for you to leave it to them they know what to do with it. The hollow loophole in your argument is you are prejudging early stages of peaceful approach to resolve the problem as much as possible not leading it to arm conflict. Of course if there woul be radical changes in the peaceful approach it can change overtime radically if there is a need to counter hostile actions.

      • INQ_reader

        You are not any different from other critics of mine. You hit my person instead of focusing on the issue. You also bring a lot of useless things into the argument.

        You just have to answer and support: will US side with the Philippines vs Chinese territorial intrusion?

      • freedom of navigation

        You are the one who is bringing useless things in your post because you want Pinoys to believe that a bully neighbor is a friendly neighbor. Do you find yourself useful if you help someone taking away something from somebody that does not belong to her/him? If you have nothing good to say about my country just leave my country alone.
        I have already answered your question a lot of times but you veer away from all the topics about it.

      • INQ_reader

        If I’m against US, it does not mean I’m pro-China. I’m pro-Filipino and will always defend those who wants to destroy her.

        As I said, you keep on hitting my person, but never going to the issue.

        You just have to answer and support: will US side with the Philippines vs Chinese territorial intrusion?

      • freedom of navigation

        Did I hear that right? You are a pro-Filipino? Okay then, why are you posting stuffs on a message board indicative of encouraging a bully neighbor?
        My guess is you probably altered or taken the words out of context the news story that you posted that I’ll re-post unaltered:
        US reaffirms defense treaty with Philippines
        Hagel meets Gazmin on sidelines of security forum
        AFPPublished: 17:25 June 1, 2013
        “Secretary Hagel emphasised the importance of the Philippines as a treaty ally and reaffirmed the United States commitment to honor the Mutual Defence Treaty,” Pentagon spokesman George Little told journalists after the meeting……The Philippines and the US, whose soldiers fought side by side in the Pacific theatre during the Second World War, are bound to help defend each other in case of external attacks under a mutual defence treaty signed in 1951.

      • INQ_reader

        The time, date and source of the quote is indicated there. Anyone can check if who between us is dishonest.

        If I did not quote faithfully, pls paste what I posted back then.

        Also, you have to answer and support: will US side with the Philippines vs Chinese territorial intrusion?

      • freedom of navigation

        I don’t think I should allow myself to be misled in going around the circles where I know I’ll end up where I exactly began. I’m sure I’m where the truth is. You can find it out for yourself.

      • INQ_reader

        It’s up to you to continue with your unsupported arguments.

        Also, you have to answer and support: will US side with the Philippines vs Chinese territorial intrusion?

      • freedom of navigation

        Huh? Do you understand what “will honor the treaty” means? Just read this again and understand what you read:
        US reaffirms defense treaty with Philippines
        Hagel meets Gazmin on sidelines of security forum
        AFPPublished: 17:25 June 1, 2013
        “Secretary Hagel emphasised the importance of the Philippines as a treaty ally and reaffirmed the United States commitment to honor the Mutual Defence Treaty,” Pentagon spokesman George Little told journalists after the meeting……The Philippines and the US, whose soldiers fought side by side in the Pacific theatre during the Second World War, are bound to help defend each other in case of external attacks under a mutual defence treaty signed in 1951.

      • INQ_reader

        I’ve been asking what the treaty contains, what will be honored. It turns out that the MDT just means that one party will report to UN, and let UN deal with security incidents. Nothing more. There is no need for a treaty to get this done. There is no need for extended access to Philippine facilities for US-eless troops.

        —————
        ARTICLE IV. Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.

        Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

      • freedom of navigation

        That’s a normal process just as what it is normally been seen in the past decades when US & Allies defend an ally or non-ally so that the nation who carried out the unlawful attack would be asked to put a halt on it and when UN ordered is defied that’s where the treaty would take effect. That part of treaty is actually protecting both US & PHL from being accused of connivance and only the nation who carried out the illegal attack would be held accountable. If you copied that part of the treaty accurately I strongly believe some Pinoys are just bragging they are smart, thereby interprets the treaty as too good to be true but are actually misinterpreting that part of the treaty.

      • INQ_reader

        I have been copying from credible websites such as the Chan Robles Law firm. How about you, what is your basis? Your argument is based on pure imagination. You accused me of misquoting, but you haven’t pasted what I allegedly posted. You doubted that I copied accurately, but you still have to quote what is accurate MDT text.

        You got the sequence wrong when you said the treaty will take effect “when UN ordered (sic) is defied.” The UN measures comes after, and that’s the end of what the treaty states. But as I said, there is no need for a treaty for the Philippines to call on the UN.

        Please read again: “…such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures..”

      • freedom of navigation

        You don’t need imagination when it is all pure common sense. As what I’ve always said it so important to understand what you read, every sentence not just selected items.
        (I have already explained to you the second paragraph of your article IV but my guess you are just catching all the words but the meaning couldn’t pass).
        Here is what’s in the 1st paragraph of your article IV: Let me highlight it with quote & unquote: “declares that it would act to meet the common dangers”. That means both PH & US have to fire back if attacked and its a treaty and both parties are obliged to help each other. I hope you understand it this time. I am not persuading you to believe me and maybe a second opinion from the law office that you know will give you a better interpretation.

      • INQ_reader

        You misquoted, you have to add “…in accordance with its
        constitutional
        processes.” That means, when the Philippines is attacked, US does not automatically react. It still has to be deliberated upon and a consensus built up, as what “constitutional processes” entail. Afterwards, that is the only time when we will know whether US will help the Philippines or not.

      • freedom of navigation

        I think you are oversimplifying things that is leading you to fail to see the overall meaning of the treaty. But as what I’ve said I am not persuading you to believe me and maybe a second opinion from the law office that you know may provide some clarity.

      • INQ_reader

        Look who’s talking! You’re the one who simplifies quotes by removing some parts. I do know how to read in English enough to know the meaning of what VFA and MDT says.

      • freedom of navigation

        That is to emphasize or highlight. For me, there is a difference between you take a good look at something and just take a quick glance. I maintain my position but as I’ve said I don’t persuade you to believe me.

      • INQ_reader

        You’re the one who “take a quick glance” by deliberately taking out some portions of a statement.

        You have to answer and support: will US side with the Philippines vs Chinese territorial intrusion?

      • freedom of navigation

        I explain, define everything to show how it works, all you can come up with, to sum it up, is “you have to answer and support if whether US will defend the PH” nothing more most of the time and too little of unconvincing explanation. In other words all the positions I have provided are not countered with answer completely. It’s like you only dwell on a couple of sentences most of the time to support your claim which you may find it hard to convince a moderator in a real world of debate behind the podium. And as usual I maintain my position and don’t persuade anyone to believe me.

      • INQ_reader

        This is a simple yes/no question, but I never saw a reply from you: will US side with the Philippines vs Chinese territorial intrusion?

      • freedom of navigation

        I’m not the US to answer that question so you are not suppose to ask me that question at all. I’m a mere perceiver just as anyone else interested to find out the answer. I can only limit myself to explain how it works in exchanging point of views with others. And as usual I maintain my position and don’t convince anyone to believe me.

      • INQ_reader

        OMG!!! You come all the way here, and you’re still not sure whether US will help defend the Philippines vs Chinese territorial invasion? Well, I’m sure they will not, because there are already situations in Bajo de Masinloc and some Spratley’s Island that calls for US defense help, but US is not lifting a finger.

      • freedom of navigation

        Can you make your argument a little bit convincing? If territorial invasion to you is already equivalent to armed attack that will make you a person of lower-than-normal intelligence. (no offense meant) it’s the least I can describe it. I even thought you are so knowledgeable about the MDT for putting it on the msg board not just once but you are misconstruing territorial invasion for an armed attack. I suggest that you read again that part of MDT and just correct yourself if you think you are wrong.

      • INQ_reader

        You haven’t answered my question: will US help defend the Philippines vs Chinese territorial invasion?

      • freedom of navigation

        Can you make your argument a little bit convincing? If territorial invasion to you is already equivalent to armed attack that will make you a person of lower-than-normal intelligence. (no offense meant) it’s the least I can describe it. I even thought you are so knowledgeable about the MDT for putting it on the msg board not just once but you are misconstruing territorial invasion for an armed attack. I suggest that you read again that part of MDT and just correct yourself if you find out I’m correct and you are wrong.

  • sanjuan683

    Kayo mga fil-am huwag na kayo makialam sa Pinas, you’re not longer Pinoy hehehehe american pie na kayo hehehe. Pinoy for pinoy, american for Syria, napahiya yan presidente ninyo na gusto lusubin ang Syria hahahahahahahahaha para makapagbenta na naman ng armas para umangat ang economy ninyo bagsak. Kaya gustong-gusto may giyera. hahahahaha

    • riza888

      That’s your view. Another is that the threat of arm strike on Syria by Obama has scared Putin and Assad a good bit or they wouldn’t be trying so hard to avoid the Tomahawks. Putin knows Obama to be tougher than the Republicans thinks he is. I believe he has been pretty ruthless with the Drones, drove Mr Kadhafi into a culvert to die, and pulled Bin Laden out of his rat hole.

      • Abnoy Golum Aquino

        Obama is trying to save his face since the UK parliament voted down on his request and the US Congress would also vote down on him. So rather than be humiliated, he pretends to follow Putin’s tricks. He knows Putin and Syria are lying, but he can save his own face by pretending to believe in it.

      • crazy_horse_101010

        we already know you are a american basher and can you read his mind . so what?

  • Abnoy Golum Aquino

    “Filipino” is a nationality. Fil-Ams are not Filipino. They are Americans. They are Austronesian Americans or Malayo-Polynesian Americans who descended from the Philippines. But they are now Americans, not Filipino, unless they have dual citizenship which is extremely rare among Fil-Ams because they don’t want to pay their Philippine back taxes. They can’t get a Philippine passport unless they pay their taxes, and they don’t.

    • crazy_horse_101010

      funny my wife has a dual and her two closest friends have dual citizenships. and they pay their taxes suggest you go to google and find out how many filipinos have dual citizenships .also look and see how many millions of pisos the philippines has made off of dual citizenships. you can find all this on google

      • Vikki

        Filipinos are not filipinos, pesos is not pisos, and Philippines is not philippines. Respect!

      • crazy_horse_101010

        HUH? respect what are you on drugs this isnt mexico with pesos. and i dont use capitals but ive spent several million pisos helping the poor so what is your respect sue me grammar cop, is that you purple daisy. purple daisy also said peso instead of piso . .

      • crazy_horse_101010

        and purple daisy speaking of respect. you. hate filipnos remember has you said they are COWARDS you only respect china comrade. HAWHAWHAW CAUGHT YOU YOUR PESO SCREWED YOU

      • Vikki

        Hey, kid..learn proper english grammar first before destroying your empty cranium, and commenting nonsense. Go ask your mama where your papa is. You’re a psychopath loon.

      • crazy_horse_101010

        STILL CRYING CRAZY DAZZY OFFSPRING OF A PIG THINK YOU STUPID AZZ COMMEMTS BOTHER ME CHRONIC LIAR I KNOW YOU ARE DESPERATE AND THAT IS FUNNY AND YOU ASK MY PARENTS SINCE THEY ARE GONE TO BAD YOU NEVER HAD ANY WHO WANTED A REJECT LIKE YOU MORON HAWHAWHAWHAWHAW PITIFUL DOUCHEBAG YOU ARE FUNNY LUNATIC KEEP IT UP ALSO DID YOU EVER FIND SPAIN IN ASIA IDIOT KEEP LOOKING COMMIE

      • hello stupids

        funny my wife has a dual and her two closest friends have dual citizenships…they are cheating on the welfare….hahahaha

        anyway to get a ticket back to US at your age is not wise
        at all

        hahahaha

  • mangtom

    Just ignore these Obama and US government bashers. They are disgruntled US visa applicants-he-he-he.

    WELCOME PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR YOUR FIRST VISIT TO THE PHILIPPINES. WE HOPE YOU CAN VISIT US MORE OFTEN. MANY FIL-AMS HAVE YOUR SUPPORT. HAVE A SAFE JOURNEY TO OUR SHORES. YOU ARE OUR MAN OF THE HOUR.

    • freedom of navigation

      One of their purpose is to persuade us to believe that a bully is a nice person.

    • 33Sam

      AS THE HUNCHBACK WELCOMES THE VAMPIRE!!!

  • mangtom

    Abnoy Golum Aquino: Lasing ka ba?

  • 33Sam

    MANY FILIPINOS ARE WHORES. THE WHORE MAKER IS COMING TO TOWN AND LITTLE FLIPPERS ARE BESIDE THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEIR PIMP WILL BE IN TOWN.

    MEANWHILE THERE IS AN IMPEACHMENT MOVEMENT IN THE U.S AGAINST OBAMA, ONGOING BUT YOU CAN’T IMPEACH AN INELIGIBLE. NO ONE KNOWS WHO OBAMA IS, WHERE HE COMES FROM, HIS CREDENTIALS.

    BUT FILIPINOS BY VIRTUE OF THE OFFICE OBAMA BOUGHT HIS WAY INTO, AND THE USUAL LACK OF SELF RESPECT FILIPINOS HAVE FOR THEMSELVES WHERE IT SHOULD REALLY COUNT, FILIPINOS WILL WELCOME THE DEVIL BECAUSE THAT’S HOW BRAINLESS A CULTURE THEY HAVE BECOME.

  • mangtom

    Hi 33UncleSam-nakalimutan mo na naman yong appointment mo sa shrink mo kaya nagwawala ka na naman. Tigas talaga ang ulo mo, choy.

  • disqusted0fu

    The PH needs all the support it can get because it’s as if the PH doesn’t have a leader now. Our President doesn’t seem to be responding to the issues of our nation. His administration just keeps on jumping from one issue to another without resolving anything. Diversion is the name of the game.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94