gjoe
07-14 02:35 PM
Looks like the situation in this thread is going to get from bad to worse.
wallpaper Ashley Tisdale in Allure
kartikiran
06-23 05:34 PM
vivid_bharti, living in your own space is a pleasure only if we know we are allowed to stay here permanently. As long as we all wait for our green cards, it is never a pleasure. We will be concerned about what happens to our job, related to it with our H1, 485 etc. It is never a pleasure as long as we wait for green cards. Rent or Buy, does not matter.
Just my two cents. If you found this message useful, please join your respective state chapters, if you still have not.
Even a tiny ant understands grassroots level approach when it builds the mass by joining each other while looking for food. Meanwhile, we are not able to join hands to get our problems resolved. IV Core is willing to provide directions, but we need to trust each other and first join hands locally to make a nationwide dent.
I'm surprised nobody is even considering the other aspect i.e. the pleasure to live in your own house. We people are living in US in a small sized appt. while we bought houses in India, which is on rent. You will never know the pleasure of living in your own space...
Just my two cents. If you found this message useful, please join your respective state chapters, if you still have not.
Even a tiny ant understands grassroots level approach when it builds the mass by joining each other while looking for food. Meanwhile, we are not able to join hands to get our problems resolved. IV Core is willing to provide directions, but we need to trust each other and first join hands locally to make a nationwide dent.
I'm surprised nobody is even considering the other aspect i.e. the pleasure to live in your own house. We people are living in US in a small sized appt. while we bought houses in India, which is on rent. You will never know the pleasure of living in your own space...
gapala
06-07 04:39 PM
The 10 to 12% down south estimate might be true on the average. However, from where I stand now, in my county not just my zip code, house prices started to go up by 0.8% since January. It might still go down as I see fluctuations but I feel that it's stabilizing already.
But only time can tell, right? All I'm doing right now is to satisfy myself that I made a right decision. Should I find out that it's a mistake, I should be truthful to myself that I did. There's no reason to lie to my ownself. JunRN, My comments are not about your individual situation but rather a broader analysis. Individual cases may be different based on location preference and affordability and other social factors.
Historically, during the summer time, home prices will marginally increase as many people are expected to or will go around to buy homes. If you look at any listing which shows the historic prices such as trulia.. you will see that Builders are resorting to same tactics.. 20000 increase... some time around mid May 2009.... It will continue for couple of months.. but will not sustain in this situation. During the end of Fall into winter, it is going to come down and by Mid 2010.. based on popular economic forecast the prices will floor.
Think about this, Every one knows that Home prices cannot go up in the midst of job losses and recession....unless there is Inflation, in which case, House prices will be the last thing to rise.. after all the consumer goods and services start to peak.. The media in this country is messing around with people's head with their opinion playing it over and over again as if they got it all figured out... to drive people to make stupid decisions and take up huge financial commitments..
Lot of builders are already filing for bankruptcy and banks who lent them, end up owning the properties... What do they do with all those houses if no one can afford to buy them? .. they wreck the new houses... Yes.. This is going to be another round of collapse comming our way unless.. they reform immigration policies to allow more educated folks who can buy those homes..... I should say its happening... Let me give you an example..
No Sale: Bank Wrecks New Houses
A Texas bank is about done demolishing 16 new and partially built houses acquired in Southern California through foreclosure, figuring it was better to knock them down than to try selling them in the depressed housing market. Guaranty Bank of Austin is wrecking the structures to provide a "safe environment" for neighbors of the abandoned housing tract in Victorville, a high-desert city about 85 miles northeast of Los Angeles, a bank spokesman said.
Victorville city officials said the bank told them the cost of finishing the development would exceed what they could sell the homes for. The bank also faced escalating city fines as vandals and squatters took over the sprawling housing project, leaving behind graffiti and drug paraphernalia, city officials said. "It's unfortunate," said George Duran, the city's code-enforcement manager. "We would have hoped for these houses to be finished. But it's up to the owner to see what is best for them." Home prices in San Bernardino County, where Victorville is located, have fallen 60% from the housing peak in 2006, according to DataQuick, a research firm. The median new-home price in Victorville is $265,990, according to Hanley Wood Market Intelligence, a housing-research firm. Homes in the Victorville development were priced at a range of $280,00 to $350,000 in early 2008, according to Hanley Wood.
Demolishing vacant houses in economically troubled, inner-city neighborhoods is common. But the demolitions in Victorville show how the housing market is weighing on lenders even in once-booming suburbs. The houses were built by a California developer less than two years ago, according to city records. Guaranty Bank has significant exposure to construction loans to home builders. Last month, its parent company, Guaranty Financial Group, was issued a "cease and desist" order by the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, citing the firm's "unsafe and unsound banking practices."
Many lenders, like Guaranty, have been foreclosing on home builders whose projects have gone bust. Regulators told Guaranty to come up with a plan to dispose of its foreclosed properties. But finding buyers is difficult, as home values remain under pressure. ... read the full story here.. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124148169574985359.html
I believe after the correction, 2010 is going to be a better year for deals on homes..
But only time can tell, right? All I'm doing right now is to satisfy myself that I made a right decision. Should I find out that it's a mistake, I should be truthful to myself that I did. There's no reason to lie to my ownself. JunRN, My comments are not about your individual situation but rather a broader analysis. Individual cases may be different based on location preference and affordability and other social factors.
Historically, during the summer time, home prices will marginally increase as many people are expected to or will go around to buy homes. If you look at any listing which shows the historic prices such as trulia.. you will see that Builders are resorting to same tactics.. 20000 increase... some time around mid May 2009.... It will continue for couple of months.. but will not sustain in this situation. During the end of Fall into winter, it is going to come down and by Mid 2010.. based on popular economic forecast the prices will floor.
Think about this, Every one knows that Home prices cannot go up in the midst of job losses and recession....unless there is Inflation, in which case, House prices will be the last thing to rise.. after all the consumer goods and services start to peak.. The media in this country is messing around with people's head with their opinion playing it over and over again as if they got it all figured out... to drive people to make stupid decisions and take up huge financial commitments..
Lot of builders are already filing for bankruptcy and banks who lent them, end up owning the properties... What do they do with all those houses if no one can afford to buy them? .. they wreck the new houses... Yes.. This is going to be another round of collapse comming our way unless.. they reform immigration policies to allow more educated folks who can buy those homes..... I should say its happening... Let me give you an example..
No Sale: Bank Wrecks New Houses
A Texas bank is about done demolishing 16 new and partially built houses acquired in Southern California through foreclosure, figuring it was better to knock them down than to try selling them in the depressed housing market. Guaranty Bank of Austin is wrecking the structures to provide a "safe environment" for neighbors of the abandoned housing tract in Victorville, a high-desert city about 85 miles northeast of Los Angeles, a bank spokesman said.
Victorville city officials said the bank told them the cost of finishing the development would exceed what they could sell the homes for. The bank also faced escalating city fines as vandals and squatters took over the sprawling housing project, leaving behind graffiti and drug paraphernalia, city officials said. "It's unfortunate," said George Duran, the city's code-enforcement manager. "We would have hoped for these houses to be finished. But it's up to the owner to see what is best for them." Home prices in San Bernardino County, where Victorville is located, have fallen 60% from the housing peak in 2006, according to DataQuick, a research firm. The median new-home price in Victorville is $265,990, according to Hanley Wood Market Intelligence, a housing-research firm. Homes in the Victorville development were priced at a range of $280,00 to $350,000 in early 2008, according to Hanley Wood.
Demolishing vacant houses in economically troubled, inner-city neighborhoods is common. But the demolitions in Victorville show how the housing market is weighing on lenders even in once-booming suburbs. The houses were built by a California developer less than two years ago, according to city records. Guaranty Bank has significant exposure to construction loans to home builders. Last month, its parent company, Guaranty Financial Group, was issued a "cease and desist" order by the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, citing the firm's "unsafe and unsound banking practices."
Many lenders, like Guaranty, have been foreclosing on home builders whose projects have gone bust. Regulators told Guaranty to come up with a plan to dispose of its foreclosed properties. But finding buyers is difficult, as home values remain under pressure. ... read the full story here.. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124148169574985359.html
I believe after the correction, 2010 is going to be a better year for deals on homes..
2011 Ashley Tisdale, Keri Hilson
AllVNeedGcPc
07-14 07:51 PM
Do you have any evidence/reference to back this up?
Have MS from US, got applied in EB3, was stuck in BEC for 4 yrs and 2 months, still waiting on 140...
Have MS from US, got applied in EB3, was stuck in BEC for 4 yrs and 2 months, still waiting on 140...
more...
Ramba
07-14 03:56 PM
If 3000 per year for EB3 had set the availability date to 2001, shouldn�t have 30K for EB2 made it current long ago?. If India and China get about 30K visas per year my PD of early 2004 would have been current long ago. So there is something wrong in your logic there.
Your supply and demand theory for EB3 I could be true.
They will not give 30K EB2 visas to IN & CH in upfront. They will issue only 7% in first 3 quarter of FY. They release the unused EB2-ROW numbers and unused EB1 numbers to EB2 I ndiaand China in last 3 months of the FY, to avoid the wastage. Thats why it has jumped by 2 years.
Your supply and demand theory for EB3 I could be true.
They will not give 30K EB2 visas to IN & CH in upfront. They will issue only 7% in first 3 quarter of FY. They release the unused EB2-ROW numbers and unused EB1 numbers to EB2 I ndiaand China in last 3 months of the FY, to avoid the wastage. Thats why it has jumped by 2 years.
jonty_11
07-09 02:12 PM
You already have I-94 valid until 11/11/2209.
Just to verify, are the numbers same on both I-94s (8/11/2007, 11/11/2009)? If so, you are ok. Staple the new I-94 in the passport along with the old one.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
Ah!! I see.....I do have the same i94 number on both the I-94s
Just to verify, are the numbers same on both I-94s (8/11/2007, 11/11/2009)? If so, you are ok. Staple the new I-94 in the passport along with the old one.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
Ah!! I see.....I do have the same i94 number on both the I-94s
more...
Macaca
02-15 05:34 PM
San Francisco's Democrat (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303714722970265.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks) WSJ Editorial, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
2010 Ashley Tisdale strips for
manub
07-07 09:55 PM
Hi,
Thank you for all your support.They asked for my husband`s paystubs ,all employment history all W2`s when he filed for AOS as primary.Later we withdrew his petition and only kept petition filed through me as the primary.That officer is extremely detailed oriented ,he/she asked and questioned every minute detail pertaining to our case.
New update on EAD is that local offices are no longer authorized to issue interim EAD`S.We went to local office in greer, south carolina(we live in charlotte,nc) and the answer we got was that they can only email uscis why there is a delay.and if we wanted to find an answer we should come back in 2 weeks and that they won`t disclose any thing by phone because of privacy act.
Thank you for all your support.They asked for my husband`s paystubs ,all employment history all W2`s when he filed for AOS as primary.Later we withdrew his petition and only kept petition filed through me as the primary.That officer is extremely detailed oriented ,he/she asked and questioned every minute detail pertaining to our case.
New update on EAD is that local offices are no longer authorized to issue interim EAD`S.We went to local office in greer, south carolina(we live in charlotte,nc) and the answer we got was that they can only email uscis why there is a delay.and if we wanted to find an answer we should come back in 2 weeks and that they won`t disclose any thing by phone because of privacy act.
more...
chanduv23
05-17 06:31 AM
For folks who think banning any sort of consulting on hn1b will solve the purpose and has a good cause, this is what is going to happen.
You most probably will have been a h1b working ina fulltime job. You will think that when h1b consultants go away, you will fall ahead in the queue and get ur GC. But my dear friend, the intent of this bill is different. IEEE USA, PG etc.. have members who are American citizens and a lot of them may be your own collegues at work and will be encouraging you to support their cause saying it benefits you.
Once consulting is banned, and when your own American collegues know it is banned and consulting company cannot hire h1b, they will be after your job. They will make conditions miswerable for u at workplace and life will get worse and you will not have any options left for you but to lead a screwed up life.
If you get fired or layed off, you will be left with no option at all. Remember, while cost cutting, companies will get rid of h1bs before they get rid of citizens, no matter how much u hang on to your job and how much u perform. Basic fact is that your are despensible.
Their only aim in life is to get rid of all Asians especially Indians and Chinese and reduce their numbers drastically, they will follow any tool or weapon. Don't believe their sweet words and their intent to help you. You must help yourself and help IV.
Though I do agree that h1b body shops indulge in irregular practices, this is common to any company. Look at biggies like msft, google etcc. they have an entire legal team working hard to workaround any system and utilize loopholes in the system. Thats how businesses survive and make money. Business means "no ethics". So just do not rationalize yourselves by claiming that you know everything. It all boils down to survival of the fittest and it is how you handle situations. Lets all not be selfish and be divided among ourselves.
You most probably will have been a h1b working ina fulltime job. You will think that when h1b consultants go away, you will fall ahead in the queue and get ur GC. But my dear friend, the intent of this bill is different. IEEE USA, PG etc.. have members who are American citizens and a lot of them may be your own collegues at work and will be encouraging you to support their cause saying it benefits you.
Once consulting is banned, and when your own American collegues know it is banned and consulting company cannot hire h1b, they will be after your job. They will make conditions miswerable for u at workplace and life will get worse and you will not have any options left for you but to lead a screwed up life.
If you get fired or layed off, you will be left with no option at all. Remember, while cost cutting, companies will get rid of h1bs before they get rid of citizens, no matter how much u hang on to your job and how much u perform. Basic fact is that your are despensible.
Their only aim in life is to get rid of all Asians especially Indians and Chinese and reduce their numbers drastically, they will follow any tool or weapon. Don't believe their sweet words and their intent to help you. You must help yourself and help IV.
Though I do agree that h1b body shops indulge in irregular practices, this is common to any company. Look at biggies like msft, google etcc. they have an entire legal team working hard to workaround any system and utilize loopholes in the system. Thats how businesses survive and make money. Business means "no ethics". So just do not rationalize yourselves by claiming that you know everything. It all boils down to survival of the fittest and it is how you handle situations. Lets all not be selfish and be divided among ourselves.
hair Ashley Tisdale nude for Allure
msp1976
02-16 10:45 AM
If your proposed legislation is defeated, there is frequently another opportunity to reintroduce it. Don�t be discouraged. Often it takes several tries to pass a measure, especially one that seeks to bring about an important change.
If you win, do not get complacent. Monitor implementation and make sure your legislation is fully funded. Look out for opposition attempts to undo or diminish your victory by trying to repeal your legislation, filing litigation to overturn it, or seeking regulations to significantly weaken its implementation.
If you win, do not get complacent. Monitor implementation and make sure your legislation is fully funded. Look out for opposition attempts to undo or diminish your victory by trying to repeal your legislation, filing litigation to overturn it, or seeking regulations to significantly weaken its implementation.
more...
unitednations
07-09 10:55 AM
Must an H-1B alien be working at all times? (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Honestly; uscis/dos don't care much for this. Maternity is a pretty good reason and is verifiable.
Other then that; department of state; uscis don't care for it much. They have enough data on companies that if it happened to a person in one quarter then ok. However, if there are a number of people who fit the profile then it gives less credibility.
I'll give you an example: DOL comes to investigate a particular person whom DOS has referred. Now; they go through the whole list of people (they actually do this); and see that every person who arrived into the country was on bench for three months...gives less credibility to the person's argument.
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Honestly; uscis/dos don't care much for this. Maternity is a pretty good reason and is verifiable.
Other then that; department of state; uscis don't care for it much. They have enough data on companies that if it happened to a person in one quarter then ok. However, if there are a number of people who fit the profile then it gives less credibility.
I'll give you an example: DOL comes to investigate a particular person whom DOS has referred. Now; they go through the whole list of people (they actually do this); and see that every person who arrived into the country was on bench for three months...gives less credibility to the person's argument.
hot ashley tisdale allure photo shoot. This shoot was about dropping
Munna Bhai
07-08 10:16 PM
In Manu's case..he had no choice, but to mention he was on H1 with those companies in that period,but he dint have paystubs/W2's with them..
this AOS is a nightmare if we have any grey areas with our case..until we get the card into our hands..!!
He can always get a letter from that company stating that he was on vacation. There is no where it is written that H1b has to work everyday.
this AOS is a nightmare if we have any grey areas with our case..until we get the card into our hands..!!
He can always get a letter from that company stating that he was on vacation. There is no where it is written that H1b has to work everyday.
more...
house In Allure#39;s annual Nudes
nogc_noproblem
08-06 12:48 PM
How to tell the sex of a fly
I stopped at a friends house the other day and found him stalking around the kitchen with a flyswatter.
When I asked if he had gotten any flies he answered, "Yeah, 5 .... 3 males and 2 females."
Curious, I inquired as to how he could tell the difference.
He answered, "It's easy, 3 were on a beer can and 2 were on the phone.
I stopped at a friends house the other day and found him stalking around the kitchen with a flyswatter.
When I asked if he had gotten any flies he answered, "Yeah, 5 .... 3 males and 2 females."
Curious, I inquired as to how he could tell the difference.
He answered, "It's easy, 3 were on a beer can and 2 were on the phone.
tattoo Ashley Tisdale gets nude
nozerd
12-26 05:25 PM
I am no military expert but it seems Pak is concentrating its forces on Punjab border and POK. I wonder why India cant do something unique this time. Like use aircraft carriers to enter Pak territory from Baluchistan and hit Karachi or attack from the South from Gujarat border. Something unique other than just attacking in Punjab/POK. Ofcourse I sure am no strategist, but if someone knows please inform.
more...
pictures ENTERTAINMENT: Ashley Tisdale
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
dresses she told Allure.
milind70
07-10 08:18 PM
My situation goes something like this.
1) I got 7th year extension in Sep 2005
2) Visited India and got stamped and got new I-94 on return.
3) Applied for 8th year extension without submitting new I-94.
but applied with old replacement I-94 came with I-797.
4) So the same I-94 continued on subsequent I-797 extensions.
5) Recently applied for 9th year extension with the same.
My Question is, do I need to submit last entry I-94 card that I missed which is expired now, for correction? Or is there any issue with this.
All these years I have the same employer.
I appreciate your help on this.
Thanks
-BMS
There are two things
1. when you got your 7th year extension 797 with I 94 , you were supposed to submit that I 94 ( on 797) along with the i 94 in your passport.
This is important most people dont do it .
2. when u aplied for 8th year extension u submitted the 797 of the 7th year along with the i 94 attached to it( which you were suppose to submit when you left the country for 7th year stamping) hence the I 94 number did not change. Your I 94 are out of synch.
I would suggest to talk to an immigration attorney and i mean a real good one .
Otherwise you could talk to an immgration officer and expalin your case.
Or you could now go out get stamped and get a new I 94 9make sure this time you submit both the I 94s when you leave)
I had a very peculiar situation where i had to travel outside the country when my H1 extension was pending and it got approved when i was out of the country and when i got a new i 94 when i came back with a new number than the one with i 94 on 797 ( which was of a later date)
I spoke to immigrtaion officer and he heard me my circumstances and said i was in status and my i 94 were in order.
Last year i went to my home country and got stamped and got a new i 94 but i submiited the two i 94s when i left the country.
1) I got 7th year extension in Sep 2005
2) Visited India and got stamped and got new I-94 on return.
3) Applied for 8th year extension without submitting new I-94.
but applied with old replacement I-94 came with I-797.
4) So the same I-94 continued on subsequent I-797 extensions.
5) Recently applied for 9th year extension with the same.
My Question is, do I need to submit last entry I-94 card that I missed which is expired now, for correction? Or is there any issue with this.
All these years I have the same employer.
I appreciate your help on this.
Thanks
-BMS
There are two things
1. when you got your 7th year extension 797 with I 94 , you were supposed to submit that I 94 ( on 797) along with the i 94 in your passport.
This is important most people dont do it .
2. when u aplied for 8th year extension u submitted the 797 of the 7th year along with the i 94 attached to it( which you were suppose to submit when you left the country for 7th year stamping) hence the I 94 number did not change. Your I 94 are out of synch.
I would suggest to talk to an immigration attorney and i mean a real good one .
Otherwise you could talk to an immgration officer and expalin your case.
Or you could now go out get stamped and get a new I 94 9make sure this time you submit both the I 94s when you leave)
I had a very peculiar situation where i had to travel outside the country when my H1 extension was pending and it got approved when i was out of the country and when i got a new i 94 when i came back with a new number than the one with i 94 on 797 ( which was of a later date)
I spoke to immigrtaion officer and he heard me my circumstances and said i was in status and my i 94 were in order.
Last year i went to my home country and got stamped and got a new i 94 but i submiited the two i 94s when i left the country.
more...
makeup Check outAshley Tisdale Allure
riva2005
05-16 06:51 PM
It is very simple -- the 'consulting on the bench' business is ILLEGAL. You can have any opinion on it you wan't, but the bottom line is it is against the law. If you can't meet the legal requirements, you shouldn't be here in the first place.
And what do you think about the skilled and HONEST people in this world, finding a job and having an H-1B petition submitted on their behalf, only to see all the H-1Bs go in a single day due to the consultants? My sympathy goes to these people instead of any 'consultant'.
It is amazing that people don't seem to grasp the concept of something being ILLEGAL, and instead seem to rely on some self-perceived logic as to what they can and can't do. Let us focus on the illegal clogging of the system and restore it to the otherwise great visa program it was meant to be.
Ok fine. you are right. I am wrong. I have run out of arguments and unless I repeat them like you are repeating them, I dont have anything new to add. Go and support the Durbin-Grassley bill. Make phone calls and write letters to other lawmakers and tell them that Durbin-Grassley is a good idea.
Thanks for listening and responding so far.
And what do you think about the skilled and HONEST people in this world, finding a job and having an H-1B petition submitted on their behalf, only to see all the H-1Bs go in a single day due to the consultants? My sympathy goes to these people instead of any 'consultant'.
It is amazing that people don't seem to grasp the concept of something being ILLEGAL, and instead seem to rely on some self-perceived logic as to what they can and can't do. Let us focus on the illegal clogging of the system and restore it to the otherwise great visa program it was meant to be.
Ok fine. you are right. I am wrong. I have run out of arguments and unless I repeat them like you are repeating them, I dont have anything new to add. Go and support the Durbin-Grassley bill. Make phone calls and write letters to other lawmakers and tell them that Durbin-Grassley is a good idea.
Thanks for listening and responding so far.
girlfriend Ashley Tisdale, Bridget
javadeveloper
08-02 12:11 PM
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
245(i)/245(K) covers only upto 180 days(6 months) of out of status , the possible OOS issues are
1.Overstay of I-94 card's date
2.Unauthorized employment
3.Staying without payslips (with some exceptions like Maternity,paternity,sick)
http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html click here for more info.
USCIS will issue RFE/NOID and ask for explaination OR deny I-485 , I am wondering where this $1000 concept came from?? Correct me if I am wrong
245(i)/245(K) covers only upto 180 days(6 months) of out of status , the possible OOS issues are
1.Overstay of I-94 card's date
2.Unauthorized employment
3.Staying without payslips (with some exceptions like Maternity,paternity,sick)
http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html click here for more info.
USCIS will issue RFE/NOID and ask for explaination OR deny I-485 , I am wondering where this $1000 concept came from?? Correct me if I am wrong
hairstyles Nude Ashley Tisdale, Keri
GCapplicant
07-13 11:47 AM
Here is my 2 cents worth...
What EB3 I wants to accomplish here is to emphasize that we are retrogressed beyond logic, limits and reason.
What we could probably do is, write a letter describing our plight and also mention in the letter, the IV effort that is underway. By doing this, we can emphasize our situation and at the same time substantiate IV's effort.
We can come up with agreeable facts that should go in the letter that explains EB3 I plight. IV core can help with this and also proof read and approve final version of the doc. We should stress on date being stuck in 2001. And AC21 not giving a whole lot flexibility to change jobs even with EAD. Like a programmer with 7 years of experience would be eligible to become a PM (if the person has acquired right skills/knowledge/experience) but I am not sure if AC21 allows a person to do that.
Besides, EAD is not GC. If not, let them announce EAD as temp GC - meaning issuing EAD means GC is approved but the card is not issued owing to number availability - Makes sense? In other words, once EAD is issued the person's GC should not be disapproved. The clock for citizenship should start with I140 approval. That way the applicant will have the peace of mind! And then let DOS/USCIS issue GC at their own pace!!
I agree with that...spillover should have a releif to highly retrogressed also.Common 2001 EB3 is still hanging when will we get our solution.EAD is not a GC.This not relief.I understand unity is required here ,but how aboutEB3
.Even we need required justice.
Atleast we can address the problem.
What EB3 I wants to accomplish here is to emphasize that we are retrogressed beyond logic, limits and reason.
What we could probably do is, write a letter describing our plight and also mention in the letter, the IV effort that is underway. By doing this, we can emphasize our situation and at the same time substantiate IV's effort.
We can come up with agreeable facts that should go in the letter that explains EB3 I plight. IV core can help with this and also proof read and approve final version of the doc. We should stress on date being stuck in 2001. And AC21 not giving a whole lot flexibility to change jobs even with EAD. Like a programmer with 7 years of experience would be eligible to become a PM (if the person has acquired right skills/knowledge/experience) but I am not sure if AC21 allows a person to do that.
Besides, EAD is not GC. If not, let them announce EAD as temp GC - meaning issuing EAD means GC is approved but the card is not issued owing to number availability - Makes sense? In other words, once EAD is issued the person's GC should not be disapproved. The clock for citizenship should start with I140 approval. That way the applicant will have the peace of mind! And then let DOS/USCIS issue GC at their own pace!!
I agree with that...spillover should have a releif to highly retrogressed also.Common 2001 EB3 is still hanging when will we get our solution.EAD is not a GC.This not relief.I understand unity is required here ,but how aboutEB3
.Even we need required justice.
Atleast we can address the problem.
lfwf
08-06 02:54 PM
OP is long gone. Your post is full of big brave words and no substance. If you want to have a discussion and demonstrate your "intellect", please make some rational arguments and back them up. There is no lawsuit discussion here, just a debate on the merits of BS+5 PD porting
NKR,
When you give reds, learn to read the whole post. I pointed out that since Op was gone, no one here was really filing a lawsuit but we were debating the issue. The thread may be about anything, so what? The discussion ahd turned to a personalized bashing of anyone that dared file for EB2.
Reading your posts I see that you got a red from someone, guess you decided to lash out in return. Fitting!
NKR,
When you give reds, learn to read the whole post. I pointed out that since Op was gone, no one here was really filing a lawsuit but we were debating the issue. The thread may be about anything, so what? The discussion ahd turned to a personalized bashing of anyone that dared file for EB2.
Reading your posts I see that you got a red from someone, guess you decided to lash out in return. Fitting!
Macaca
05-20 06:21 PM
Diplomatically Insulting the Chinese (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/diplomatically-insulting-the-chinese-5329) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The National Interest
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
May 2011 is likely to go down as an especially important and intensive period in U.S.-China relations. Leaders of the two countries held the latest annual session of the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue on May 9-10. And this week, eight high-ranking Chinese generals, led by Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People�s Liberation Army, will meet their Pentagon counterparts and then tour selected U.S. military installations.
The conventional wisdom is that these events mark a dramatic improvement in a relationship that has been marked by growing tensions in recent years. That interpretation is partially correct, but there are some worrisome countercurrents that are also important. Despite the improving communication between the two sides, U.S.-China relations remain strained, and there are troublesome issues that will not be easy to ameliorate, much less resolve.
The opening day of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue illustrated both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, the Chinese delegation for the first time included high-level officers of the PLA. Their absence from those meetings in previous years left a noticeable void in the discussions, especially on such crucial issues as nuclear weapons policy and the military uses of space. American officials also viewed the lack of a military contingent in the Chinese delegation as tangible evidence of the PLA�s continuing wariness, if not outright hostility, toward the United States. The presence of those leaders in the latest dialogue was an indication that the cold war that had developed between the PLA and the Pentagon since the collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in 2001 was finally beginning to thaw.
On the other hand, the opening remarks of Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials struck a confrontational tone. They expressed sharp criticism of Beijing�s recent arrests of activists and artists following the pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East. More broadly, Clinton stated that �We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights.� In an interview in The Atlantic, released during the talks, Clinton was even more caustic, accusing China�s leaders of trying �to stop history,� which she described as �a fool�s errand.�
It was not surprising that the U.S. delegation would raise the human rights issue in the course of the dialogue. But it was not the most constructive and astute diplomacy to highlight during the opening session perhaps the most contentious topic on the agenda. A senior administration official later stated that the discussions on human rights were �very candid,� which was probably an understatement.
The broader context of the opening session was not overly friendly either. While that session was taking place, President Obama conducted a lengthy telephone conversation with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The White House issued a bland statement that the two leaders discussed matters of bilateral and international concern, including the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but the underlying message to the Chinese was anything but subtle. The timing especially sent a signal to PRC leaders that in addition to Washington�s strategic links with its traditional allies in China�s neighborhood (especially Japan), the United States had key options available regarding the other rising regional giant�and Chinese strategic competitor�India. As in the case of the lectures on human rights, highlighting U.S.-India ties at that moment did not help ease bilateral tensions with Beijing.
Even when U.S. officials ostensibly sought to be conciliatory, the attempt often came across as self-serving and borderline condescending. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, for example, praised some �very promising changes� in Beijing�s economic policy that had taken place during the previous year, especially on the currency valuation issue. But there were few offers of economic carrots from the U.S. side. The emphasis was always on the concessions Washington expected from Beijing.
The closed-door meetings appeared to be more constructive than the public session, as the participants reached agreement on a number of measures, both minor and significant. In the former category was the announcement of Beijing�s decision to offer twenty thousand scholarships to American students for study in China. In the latter category was a two-pronged agreement, which included both a commitment to conduct regular talks (dubbed �Strategic Security Dialogues�) regarding security problems in East Asia and a �framework for economic cooperation� to address the full range of occasionally contentious bilateral economic and financial issues. In addition, Beijing made commitments to increase the transparency of China�s economy, especially the government�s use of export credits.
Progress on security and economic topics was gratifying and holds considerable potential. But whether the outcome deserves the label �milestone agreement,� as officials contended, remains to be seen. The significance of the accord depends heavily on the subsequent execution, especially on the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the dialogue clearly ended on a high note, and one that was better than anticipated following the U.S. delegation�s brusque comments at the opening session.
Expectations regarding the visit of General Chen and his PLA colleagues are also upbeat. The visit itself is a significant breakthrough. Military-to-military relations have been tense and episodic for years. The most recent disruption occurred in early 2010 when Beijing angrily severed those ties following the Obama administration�s announcement of a multi-billion-dollar arms sale to Taiwan.
Despite the cordial rhetoric accompanying this trip (and the full military honors accorded Chen during a ceremony at Fort Myer), the visit has far more symbolic than substantive importance. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are not about to become best friends. The best that can realistically be expected would be measures to improve communications between forces deployed in the air and on the sea in the Western Pacific region to reduce the danger of accidents or miscalculations. Any breakthrough on larger strategic disagreements will have to be reached between officials at higher pay grades than even General Chen and his American counterparts.
The change in tone in the U.S.-China relationship is welcome, since better cooperation on both economic and strategic issues is important. Trends on both fronts over the past several years have been worrisome. A failure to cooperate on economic matters not only jeopardizes both the U.S. and Chinese economies, it also poses a threat to the global economic recovery. Animosity on security topics creates dangerous tensions in East Asia and undermines progress on such issues as preventing nuclear proliferation.
Nevertheless, while China and the United States have significant interests in common, they also have some clashing concerns in both the economic and strategic arenas. There are bound to be tensions between the United States, the incumbent global economic leader and strategic hegemon, and China, the rapidly rising economic and military power. The critical task for leaders in both countries is to manage those tensions and to keep them under control.
The political and diplomatic dance between such great powers is inevitably a wary, delicate one. But the alternative would be the kind of outright hostility that marked the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that would be to no one�s benefit.
China must stop being so secretive about its military rise (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088783/china-must-stop-being-so-secretive-about-its-military-rise/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
Stealth has the smell of success (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad03.html) By Carlo Kopp | Asia Times
A Rare-Earths Showdown Looms
WTO litigation over China's export limits is inevitable unless Beijing comes to its senses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331010793763864.html)
By JAMES BACCHUS | Wall Street Journal
Chinese interests in Pacific nations: mining ventures in PNG (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/19/chinese-interests-in-pacific-nations-mining-ventures-in-png/) By Graeme Smith | UTS and ANU
China-risers should pause for breath (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME20Ad01.html) By Tom Engelhardt | Asia Times
How China Gains from Fukushima (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/05/20/how-china-gains-from-fukushima/) By Saurav Jha | The Diplomat
