unitednations
03-26 09:27 PM
I think we have gotten way off topic from original poster.
I should have posted the 140 denial where USCIS pointed at temporary job before person responded with their documents.
in 140/485 stage it is very dangerous sending information like client contracts as you are putting it in their face that the job may not be permanent. In the particular case I attached; the attorney in trying to prove ability to pay winded up opening other doors for uscis to step through.
I should have posted the 140 denial where USCIS pointed at temporary job before person responded with their documents.
in 140/485 stage it is very dangerous sending information like client contracts as you are putting it in their face that the job may not be permanent. In the particular case I attached; the attorney in trying to prove ability to pay winded up opening other doors for uscis to step through.
wallpaper File:Cambodia indochina map
dealsnet
09-29 01:35 PM
SEE THE 1999 ARTICLE IN NY TIMES.
Bush get the blame for every thing in the world.
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
NYT said:
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
NYT said:
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
Bush get the blame for every thing in the world.
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
NYT said:
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
NYT said:
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
thepaew
09-29 04:58 PM
I am an Electrical Engineer by training and I manage and lead an R&D group at an American semiconductor company. We design computer-chips that enable about 50% of the world's cellular phones.
I will definitely be moving out of the US when the Dems get elected as I do not think that they are capable of making the politically tough but necessary decisions on immigration. They are beholden to too many populist groups and will make the immigration issue a class-based fight. I've had enough of paying taxes, creating $$ & jobs for US-based companies - I've been waiting since 1999.
I am of course thankful to the US taxpayer who has paid for my graduate school tuition and board, to the US-companies that have given me opportunities that are equal to native-born Americans, and to my American friends for their friendship and hospitality. But prudence demands that I hedge my bets and I will have to relocate to friendlier shores.
Thought I'd share my experience. Good Luck to All.
By the next Presidential Election I will have mostly gotten my green card. I know I won't be eligible to vote then, but I will still be eligible to donate to the election campaigns. I have decided right now that whatever may happen I will donate to that party which makes my journey to the green card easier and faster.
I also have a plan B if I don't get my green card in next 24 months. I am a chemical engineer by education and profession with a US graduate degree in chemical engineering and more than 7 years of work experience in a premium organization in the oil, gas & chemicals industry. Everyone is more than aware how good the oil, gas & chemicals industry is doing worldwide. I very well know that I am a hot commodity in the job market in the whole world. Those who have traveled on Singapore Airlines must have seen advertisements in the Singapore airport displaying that oil and gas is their largest (next to Singapore Airlines) revenue making industry and they need qualified and experienced personnel. Job advertisements in the airport? Wow! Think why Alberta is the hottest place these days. I got an invitation from Canadian Government to apply for Canadian green card, citing my occupation. Australian Government has declared Chemical Engineering as the occupation with the highest demand in Australia due to their conventional mining and metals business and now the newly found gas reserves in north and west parts of that continent. This is my plan B. I have already secured an Australian Permanent Residency and that too in 6 months time. Hats off to the highly efficient immigration department of the Australian Government. In addition I already have 3 job offers there - one each in Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.
I have 2 burning innovative ideas in my mind - one related to biogas and carbon credits and the other related to water desalination. I have kept both of them on hold right now until I get the US green card. I know I will work on them but not sure which country gets the benefit - USA or Australia.
Then why am I sticking around here in the US? 1. I have a US graduate degree, 2. Both my daughters are born here and are US citizens and 3. I can't deny that I have started to put down my roots here. 24 more months and will not hesitate to quit USA and settle in Australia. It will be tough, but can't help it being forced to do it.
P.S. Two of my friends with similar background as mine, have left for Australia for good in August this year. They have settled in Sydney. Another acquaintance with occupation related to oil & gas, has migrated to Perth.
I will definitely be moving out of the US when the Dems get elected as I do not think that they are capable of making the politically tough but necessary decisions on immigration. They are beholden to too many populist groups and will make the immigration issue a class-based fight. I've had enough of paying taxes, creating $$ & jobs for US-based companies - I've been waiting since 1999.
I am of course thankful to the US taxpayer who has paid for my graduate school tuition and board, to the US-companies that have given me opportunities that are equal to native-born Americans, and to my American friends for their friendship and hospitality. But prudence demands that I hedge my bets and I will have to relocate to friendlier shores.
Thought I'd share my experience. Good Luck to All.
By the next Presidential Election I will have mostly gotten my green card. I know I won't be eligible to vote then, but I will still be eligible to donate to the election campaigns. I have decided right now that whatever may happen I will donate to that party which makes my journey to the green card easier and faster.
I also have a plan B if I don't get my green card in next 24 months. I am a chemical engineer by education and profession with a US graduate degree in chemical engineering and more than 7 years of work experience in a premium organization in the oil, gas & chemicals industry. Everyone is more than aware how good the oil, gas & chemicals industry is doing worldwide. I very well know that I am a hot commodity in the job market in the whole world. Those who have traveled on Singapore Airlines must have seen advertisements in the Singapore airport displaying that oil and gas is their largest (next to Singapore Airlines) revenue making industry and they need qualified and experienced personnel. Job advertisements in the airport? Wow! Think why Alberta is the hottest place these days. I got an invitation from Canadian Government to apply for Canadian green card, citing my occupation. Australian Government has declared Chemical Engineering as the occupation with the highest demand in Australia due to their conventional mining and metals business and now the newly found gas reserves in north and west parts of that continent. This is my plan B. I have already secured an Australian Permanent Residency and that too in 6 months time. Hats off to the highly efficient immigration department of the Australian Government. In addition I already have 3 job offers there - one each in Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.
I have 2 burning innovative ideas in my mind - one related to biogas and carbon credits and the other related to water desalination. I have kept both of them on hold right now until I get the US green card. I know I will work on them but not sure which country gets the benefit - USA or Australia.
Then why am I sticking around here in the US? 1. I have a US graduate degree, 2. Both my daughters are born here and are US citizens and 3. I can't deny that I have started to put down my roots here. 24 more months and will not hesitate to quit USA and settle in Australia. It will be tough, but can't help it being forced to do it.
P.S. Two of my friends with similar background as mine, have left for Australia for good in August this year. They have settled in Sydney. Another acquaintance with occupation related to oil & gas, has migrated to Perth.
2011 Map of Cambodia-. Yamisha
razis123
12-18 03:17 AM
Guys..
If you believe in Science, you wont tend to believe in any religion or for that matter any God..
God was created by man..
Imagine this :
Take for ex : God is human.. How can a human being be supreme or whatever and manage other humans.. For ex if 1000 people commit crime how can a God being a instance of human being watch them.. Even if he watch them how can he punish them.. all not humanly possible.. so God cannot be human..
So let us take like what Islam says.. God is not human nor he is physically presence.. In that case how an Supreme being again watch all of our deeds when even a human kind of thing is not possible.. So God cannot be supremely supreme to watch us..
Earth all happened by itself and it evolved by itself.. It will destroy itself and it will retransform itself.. this is the absolute truth.. believe it or not..
Everyone has some kind of inner consciensus.. you be afraid to that and answerable to that.. (You can call it as God if you want..)
Other than that start believing in Science and be answerable to yourself.. Nothing else matters...
You are saying all this out of sheer ignorance and you yourself dont know what you are speaking about your own creator. If you know little science you will go away from religion, if you know more science, you will come towards religion. You are a victim of the former.
If you believe in Science, you wont tend to believe in any religion or for that matter any God..
God was created by man..
Imagine this :
Take for ex : God is human.. How can a human being be supreme or whatever and manage other humans.. For ex if 1000 people commit crime how can a God being a instance of human being watch them.. Even if he watch them how can he punish them.. all not humanly possible.. so God cannot be human..
So let us take like what Islam says.. God is not human nor he is physically presence.. In that case how an Supreme being again watch all of our deeds when even a human kind of thing is not possible.. So God cannot be supremely supreme to watch us..
Earth all happened by itself and it evolved by itself.. It will destroy itself and it will retransform itself.. this is the absolute truth.. believe it or not..
Everyone has some kind of inner consciensus.. you be afraid to that and answerable to that.. (You can call it as God if you want..)
Other than that start believing in Science and be answerable to yourself.. Nothing else matters...
You are saying all this out of sheer ignorance and you yourself dont know what you are speaking about your own creator. If you know little science you will go away from religion, if you know more science, you will come towards religion. You are a victim of the former.
more...
gapala
12-20 08:54 AM
Science keeps evolving as we learn new things. Something that evolves, learn and change is alive. Religion never changes and its "guardians" do not want it to change. Something that never evolve, change even after learning new things is dead. That's the fundamental difference between religion and science even when the two compete with each other in the same sphere to answer different questions of mankind. You seems to suggest that it is bad and wrong for science to continue to get better and evolve?
Do you want to continue to follow a dead path or you think there is a possibility that there is more to this world than what is offered in the organized religion. I am not an atheist because I do believe in the Creator, our source. But I do not believe that any organized religion is the ONLY way to get there, as ALL religions preach. Rather, organized religions keep us away from getting there. All through out history, more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other aspect in nature. How is it possible that the path to our creator be so violent and deadly? The form of all recognized & organized religions practiced by over 99% of mankind is not the direction in which the "GODs" of these religions would want its followers to go. These religions were created by con artists and thugs long after the saints were gone.
I find it funny that you blame science for evolving and making new discoveries i.e. blaming every next generation to learn more than it predecessors. Why? Because the smallest known particle to man is no longer an atom???? And why do people need to lean their faith on a religion. If that faith is true in its entirety, what is the role of a religion? The fact that faith needs a religion on lean on, means that faith is not strong enough, and hence the case for elimination of religion from our way of life.
But you said one thing right. Religion is the way we live. So religion is not the spiritual structure we want to live by but the corrupt immoral wrong way we continue to live, because our parents and our parent's parents lived like that, so it has got to be the right way, right?
Faith could mean different things to different people because relationship with god is personal. But religion is laid out in the form in the "books". There is no difference in the way it says that "Jesus is the only son of God" or "Kafirs must be converted or killed" or "people of lower caste are there to serve Brahmans". There is no ambiguity to this. Now, if the faith is weak and it needs support to lean on a religion, then for some, faith and religion become synonyms. But faith and religion are in two different spheres and they are world apart, no matter how hard the religious right wants to try to obfuscate the meaning of "faith" and "religion".
.
It seems there is misunderstanding. Being in the field of science, I believe science and religion are complimentary to each other rather than competitive as you suggested. I guess you are comparing with what folks "Preach" as religion from books, that is taken out of context. I am not blaming science rather providing a perspective as it is still evolving and we know very little at this moment though it seems a lot :) be it in space research or in human anatomy. Process of birth or process of death :)
Are you suggesting that all organized religions are bad? I guess not. Science spectrum, not at the academic level, but at the professional arena believe that knowledge already exist, call it religious or spritual or something else and that is why we "research" which leads to development. Its very suggestive and not original. Re-search for something that exist but not available point in time. it is not brand new. Just to quote, There is a research project on process of birth, the description of process of birth already exist in the scriptures. I am not naming any here. you can google it if you are interested. Its clearly describe embryogenesis, week by week growth etc. We do not believe anything which is not proven by science right? We could see things through only after the invention of radium further development into X-RAY and Ultrasound technologies and commercial use in 1900's. Descriptions of the past and what we see matches except the language :). Lot of the things of past are yet to be proven by science. You know what is interesting? Descriptions are in the phylosophical book not even a medical book.
To your point, Not only science, everything changes and evolve at the core including you and me. In life science, researchers look at you and me as composition of chemicals which reacts constantly and changes happens every moment. There are few things that does not change.. that is why they are called truth. They stood the test of time such as Earth is not flat :).
We both agree on point that organized religion is not the only way but that does not mean that, its a bad thing, exception of extremism.
Now, not even a single cell in yours and my body remains same after 7 years.. what that means is you are a completely new model after 7 years. Science provided more insight and new pespective into the religion and I do not think the values instilled in us by parents and their parents such as Health, Hygiene, Home, Human Values, Harmony in Diversity etc. are dead. You also have to take into consideration, the circumstances of the past and level of technological development.
We have gotten a new perspective due to research and development in science. Now do not mis quote me comparing with "book religion" that people preach. I am not at all talking about that at all though that is not a bad thing as well other than people who would pervert it in wrong way to create chaos in the world.
Do you want to continue to follow a dead path or you think there is a possibility that there is more to this world than what is offered in the organized religion. I am not an atheist because I do believe in the Creator, our source. But I do not believe that any organized religion is the ONLY way to get there, as ALL religions preach. Rather, organized religions keep us away from getting there. All through out history, more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other aspect in nature. How is it possible that the path to our creator be so violent and deadly? The form of all recognized & organized religions practiced by over 99% of mankind is not the direction in which the "GODs" of these religions would want its followers to go. These religions were created by con artists and thugs long after the saints were gone.
I find it funny that you blame science for evolving and making new discoveries i.e. blaming every next generation to learn more than it predecessors. Why? Because the smallest known particle to man is no longer an atom???? And why do people need to lean their faith on a religion. If that faith is true in its entirety, what is the role of a religion? The fact that faith needs a religion on lean on, means that faith is not strong enough, and hence the case for elimination of religion from our way of life.
But you said one thing right. Religion is the way we live. So religion is not the spiritual structure we want to live by but the corrupt immoral wrong way we continue to live, because our parents and our parent's parents lived like that, so it has got to be the right way, right?
Faith could mean different things to different people because relationship with god is personal. But religion is laid out in the form in the "books". There is no difference in the way it says that "Jesus is the only son of God" or "Kafirs must be converted or killed" or "people of lower caste are there to serve Brahmans". There is no ambiguity to this. Now, if the faith is weak and it needs support to lean on a religion, then for some, faith and religion become synonyms. But faith and religion are in two different spheres and they are world apart, no matter how hard the religious right wants to try to obfuscate the meaning of "faith" and "religion".
.
It seems there is misunderstanding. Being in the field of science, I believe science and religion are complimentary to each other rather than competitive as you suggested. I guess you are comparing with what folks "Preach" as religion from books, that is taken out of context. I am not blaming science rather providing a perspective as it is still evolving and we know very little at this moment though it seems a lot :) be it in space research or in human anatomy. Process of birth or process of death :)
Are you suggesting that all organized religions are bad? I guess not. Science spectrum, not at the academic level, but at the professional arena believe that knowledge already exist, call it religious or spritual or something else and that is why we "research" which leads to development. Its very suggestive and not original. Re-search for something that exist but not available point in time. it is not brand new. Just to quote, There is a research project on process of birth, the description of process of birth already exist in the scriptures. I am not naming any here. you can google it if you are interested. Its clearly describe embryogenesis, week by week growth etc. We do not believe anything which is not proven by science right? We could see things through only after the invention of radium further development into X-RAY and Ultrasound technologies and commercial use in 1900's. Descriptions of the past and what we see matches except the language :). Lot of the things of past are yet to be proven by science. You know what is interesting? Descriptions are in the phylosophical book not even a medical book.
To your point, Not only science, everything changes and evolve at the core including you and me. In life science, researchers look at you and me as composition of chemicals which reacts constantly and changes happens every moment. There are few things that does not change.. that is why they are called truth. They stood the test of time such as Earth is not flat :).
We both agree on point that organized religion is not the only way but that does not mean that, its a bad thing, exception of extremism.
Now, not even a single cell in yours and my body remains same after 7 years.. what that means is you are a completely new model after 7 years. Science provided more insight and new pespective into the religion and I do not think the values instilled in us by parents and their parents such as Health, Hygiene, Home, Human Values, Harmony in Diversity etc. are dead. You also have to take into consideration, the circumstances of the past and level of technological development.
We have gotten a new perspective due to research and development in science. Now do not mis quote me comparing with "book religion" that people preach. I am not at all talking about that at all though that is not a bad thing as well other than people who would pervert it in wrong way to create chaos in the world.
sk2006
06-05 02:41 PM
...Who would have thought real estate would ever crash ?. At least i never saw this coming and i guess most of those smart investors/economists did not see this coming.
Infact many SAW it coming..
In 2005 when every body I knew, was buying houses to avoid being 'Priced out' of the housing market, I too thought of buying. So I started to do some reading on the world wide web. I realized that many bloggers and experts are warning people of the bubble and warning of a hard crash coming and they supported their claims with data!
Such people were not heard and covered by main stream media like CNN or CNBS channel.
Most people I know talked to their wives or real estate agents and bought houses.
Infact many SAW it coming..
In 2005 when every body I knew, was buying houses to avoid being 'Priced out' of the housing market, I too thought of buying. So I started to do some reading on the world wide web. I realized that many bloggers and experts are warning people of the bubble and warning of a hard crash coming and they supported their claims with data!
Such people were not heard and covered by main stream media like CNN or CNBS channel.
Most people I know talked to their wives or real estate agents and bought houses.
more...
GCBatman
01-07 04:11 PM
"Refugee_New", dude I like your enthusiasm to answer not only one but many users at the same time but you may want to watch out for the red dots as well they are increasing like anything on your profile.
To everyone,
Peace Peace & Peace
Once again I condemn all the acts that leads to the deaths of innocents especially the kids.
Every problem in this world can and should be resolved by negotiations. I pray that both sides should come forward and resolve this issue diplomatically.
Said that now please work together for all the EB immigration issues.
bfadlia, i sent you a PM. Respond me when you have time.
To everyone,
Peace Peace & Peace
Once again I condemn all the acts that leads to the deaths of innocents especially the kids.
Every problem in this world can and should be resolved by negotiations. I pray that both sides should come forward and resolve this issue diplomatically.
Said that now please work together for all the EB immigration issues.
bfadlia, i sent you a PM. Respond me when you have time.
2010 Printable Map of Cambodia
texcan
08-05 04:05 PM
Sorry , you can't hide your passive aggressiveness :)
AS I mentioned on other occasions this whole process is screwed up. it gets you worked up when some one compares this (PD recapture) to labor selling. IT IS NOT.
To answer what does one get by comparing the job duties : It gives a lot. It gives EB2 classification only to those who deserve it. I wish the rules are much stricter.So that those who can claim they are EB2 are really entitled to be EB2.
There is so much dirty laundry and not good to bring that in public. But if this law suite goes , it does not take very long to show how genuine some EB2s are.
I agree, I am no saint, i have my shortcomings; actually more than i would like.
My point is please listen to others folks, and be nice.
We really cant get anything done hereby arguing.
AS I mentioned on other occasions this whole process is screwed up. it gets you worked up when some one compares this (PD recapture) to labor selling. IT IS NOT.
To answer what does one get by comparing the job duties : It gives a lot. It gives EB2 classification only to those who deserve it. I wish the rules are much stricter.So that those who can claim they are EB2 are really entitled to be EB2.
There is so much dirty laundry and not good to bring that in public. But if this law suite goes , it does not take very long to show how genuine some EB2s are.
I agree, I am no saint, i have my shortcomings; actually more than i would like.
My point is please listen to others folks, and be nice.
We really cant get anything done hereby arguing.
more...
rongch60
07-14 02:40 AM
To be honest, do you think that a petition from 1 category from 1 country will change the way USCIS interpret the spillover rule? No way! Currently, the highest priority is to make sure that USCIS use up all visa numbers. Any waste will hurt both EB2 and EB3. EB3 petition will create confusion on the bills, waste times from USCIS, and potentially took advantage by anti-immigrant groups to stop spillover. Is there any law that clear stated the cross-country spillover? Please stop the fight and not take the risk of losing all cross-country spillover!
hair Here is a map of Cambodia:
chanduv23
04-12 04:46 PM
Many/most of us here have worked like crazy dogs most of lives, followed the rules, and played by the book. "Everyone" does not have your cavalier attitude towards truth.
Working like crazy dogs????? Thats your problem. No one asked you to. if you worked like crazy dogs
(1) Either your employer enslaved you
(2) or You did it on your own
40 hours per week is standard working hours. Anything more than that is generally done at times of need. So if you are constantly working and complaining about that, then thats entirely your fault.
Working like crazy dogs????? Thats your problem. No one asked you to. if you worked like crazy dogs
(1) Either your employer enslaved you
(2) or You did it on your own
40 hours per week is standard working hours. Anything more than that is generally done at times of need. So if you are constantly working and complaining about that, then thats entirely your fault.
more...
hopefulgc
08-11 04:32 PM
get outta town.. that hilarious:D
hey, this happened right in front of eyes!! I can NEVER EVER forget it!!
My colleague was getting laid off in a month, so she was trying to find a project elsewhere. She was sitting a few yards away from me when she got a call for an interview. And I saw her coming towards me with a total white face (if there is an expression like this).
I asked her what happened..
She said "How can they do that?"
"This is not good."
"Don't they know how to talk to a woman?"
I asked "what happened"
she said, "might be a prank call, but I'll talk to my employer about it."
Her next sentence had me rolling over the floor for the next hour.
She said "After asking some technical questions, they wanted to ask some general ones"
and he asked "why is a manhole round?"
She LITERALLY had no meaning for manhole (gutter/sewerage can). And you can imagine her embarassement when I told her!
hey, this happened right in front of eyes!! I can NEVER EVER forget it!!
My colleague was getting laid off in a month, so she was trying to find a project elsewhere. She was sitting a few yards away from me when she got a call for an interview. And I saw her coming towards me with a total white face (if there is an expression like this).
I asked her what happened..
She said "How can they do that?"
"This is not good."
"Don't they know how to talk to a woman?"
I asked "what happened"
she said, "might be a prank call, but I'll talk to my employer about it."
Her next sentence had me rolling over the floor for the next hour.
She said "After asking some technical questions, they wanted to ask some general ones"
and he asked "why is a manhole round?"
She LITERALLY had no meaning for manhole (gutter/sewerage can). And you can imagine her embarassement when I told her!
hot Khmer Empire Map (End of 12
Macaca
12-27 07:15 PM
In �Daily Show� Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html) By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER | New York Times
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
more...
house to see map of Cambodia
bondgoli007
01-09 06:40 PM
a common sense guy like you would have dismissed iraqis claims of abuse in abu gharib.. america is a strong country, it doesn't need to molest prisoners..
how luxurious for you to use ur common sense while victims still suffer after their stories were corobrated by unbiased witnesses
bfadlia,
I agree with you on most things you have said in your post and if you take a honest vote among the folks on this thread, you will find the overwhelming majority on the following views:
1. The human loss and suffering of the innocent Gaza people is sad and horrific.
2. Israel has reacted too strongly and used aggression to unacceptable limits.
3. Palestine deserves its own state and power to govern itself.
Now, the reason you have the same majority of folks respond in a manner that you, refugee and rayyan object and feel offended about is due to the following:
1. You fail to acknowledge the role of Hamas in initiating this conflict AND not resolving this conflict. Even if you personally did, others have very ineffectively shied away from this point.
2. There seems to be a lack of similar anguish and sympathy offered by you guys when it came to the mumbai attacks. Not saying you applauded the attackers but you didn't denounce them with the same vigor you are using to denounce Israel.
3. Finally, the biggest reason you are getting such unwarranted and to an extent shameful posts on your religion is because you are not only ready to defend it when it's followers are the victim BUT also when it's followers are the aggressors (like in Mumbai attacks). And with all due respect to Palestinians, there seem to be more muslim aggressors in today's world than victims.
In conclusion, I have nothing against you or the others. I am sure if I met you socially you will be a decent person. Lets hope peace is given a chance in Gaza and despite the differences educated people like us unite to fight for the common good...in these forums, it is EB Green cards.
Cheers.
how luxurious for you to use ur common sense while victims still suffer after their stories were corobrated by unbiased witnesses
bfadlia,
I agree with you on most things you have said in your post and if you take a honest vote among the folks on this thread, you will find the overwhelming majority on the following views:
1. The human loss and suffering of the innocent Gaza people is sad and horrific.
2. Israel has reacted too strongly and used aggression to unacceptable limits.
3. Palestine deserves its own state and power to govern itself.
Now, the reason you have the same majority of folks respond in a manner that you, refugee and rayyan object and feel offended about is due to the following:
1. You fail to acknowledge the role of Hamas in initiating this conflict AND not resolving this conflict. Even if you personally did, others have very ineffectively shied away from this point.
2. There seems to be a lack of similar anguish and sympathy offered by you guys when it came to the mumbai attacks. Not saying you applauded the attackers but you didn't denounce them with the same vigor you are using to denounce Israel.
3. Finally, the biggest reason you are getting such unwarranted and to an extent shameful posts on your religion is because you are not only ready to defend it when it's followers are the victim BUT also when it's followers are the aggressors (like in Mumbai attacks). And with all due respect to Palestinians, there seem to be more muslim aggressors in today's world than victims.
In conclusion, I have nothing against you or the others. I am sure if I met you socially you will be a decent person. Lets hope peace is given a chance in Gaza and despite the differences educated people like us unite to fight for the common good...in these forums, it is EB Green cards.
Cheers.
tattoo Cambodia Map
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
more...
pictures Road Directions in Cambodia
sanju
12-30 01:20 AM
I think you missed my point. Which was that the 'solution' that Mr rinku1112 was suggesting, destabilizing Pakistan by funding dissident groups, is something that Pakistan already suspects India is doing. And there might be some truth to it. So, then, Pakistan would want to fund groups that would try to destabilize India.
Thats the vicious cycle.
Your point is understood and well taken, however, the only difference is, Pakistan is already committed and entirely focused in their attempts to destabilize India. The way Pakistan behaves, it seems that their sole purpose is to destabilize India. Pakistan have carried such activities since 1947, the more so after 1971. On the other hand, India is not committed to destabilize Pakistan, not yet. Which is ok, because Pakistan has enough percentage of its committed population doing a good job in destabilizing Pakistan. India is not yet spending its resources, and we all want India to spend substantial budget, say over $50 billion an year, to destabilize & disintegrate Pakistan. India is not directly involved in any destabilization of Pakistan, and the news on Geo TV and other bull shit channels are all pure lies. But those news will be ok once Indian government gets directly involved in the counter offensive.
.
Thats the vicious cycle.
Your point is understood and well taken, however, the only difference is, Pakistan is already committed and entirely focused in their attempts to destabilize India. The way Pakistan behaves, it seems that their sole purpose is to destabilize India. Pakistan have carried such activities since 1947, the more so after 1971. On the other hand, India is not committed to destabilize Pakistan, not yet. Which is ok, because Pakistan has enough percentage of its committed population doing a good job in destabilizing Pakistan. India is not yet spending its resources, and we all want India to spend substantial budget, say over $50 billion an year, to destabilize & disintegrate Pakistan. India is not directly involved in any destabilization of Pakistan, and the news on Geo TV and other bull shit channels are all pure lies. But those news will be ok once Indian government gets directly involved in the counter offensive.
.
dresses Map of Cambodia
milind70
08-03 09:22 PM
Do you really think they would send the G-325a to the consulate? Do the consulates keep all the records? For how long? I heard from immigrationportal, somebody said they only send G-325a to the consulate if one applied a visa within one year prior to AOS application. Can anyone confirm this?
If they send everyone's G-325a form to the consulates, would that result in another backlog? Thanks.
This is really a grey area, as per the field manual visa's issued by consulate/embassies less than a year are verified or checked. Less than a year is because the dept of states purges data a year old thats why less than a year time frame they send the copy to consulate for checks . But the grey area I am talking about is ,lets say i applied for 485 in july 2007 and i got my H1 stamped in sept 2006 by the time my case is processed it will be most probably oct 2007 (liek data fed in etc) now in oct 2007 when they process the checks DOS would have purged the data ,so in turn when they process your checks yourr visa issuance date shoudl be over a year as the consulates and embassies wil purge data one year old. I am talking about normal cases where visa stamping is very straight forward ,revalidation or extension etc.
If they send everyone's G-325a form to the consulates, would that result in another backlog? Thanks.
This is really a grey area, as per the field manual visa's issued by consulate/embassies less than a year are verified or checked. Less than a year is because the dept of states purges data a year old thats why less than a year time frame they send the copy to consulate for checks . But the grey area I am talking about is ,lets say i applied for 485 in july 2007 and i got my H1 stamped in sept 2006 by the time my case is processed it will be most probably oct 2007 (liek data fed in etc) now in oct 2007 when they process the checks DOS would have purged the data ,so in turn when they process your checks yourr visa issuance date shoudl be over a year as the consulates and embassies wil purge data one year old. I am talking about normal cases where visa stamping is very straight forward ,revalidation or extension etc.
more...
makeup The Cambodia Embassy is 0.3 km
Beemar
12-27 12:40 AM
So what in your opinion is the reason for the state and the government of Pakistan to provoke India, with the risk of starting a war with India that Pakistan cannot win, at a time when the economy is in a very very bad shape and there are multiple insurgencies and regular suicide attacks within Pakistan?
There is no coherent state or government in Pakistan anymore, there are only personalities pulling the country in various directions. So let's only talk of personalities. My hunch (and that of the many world intelligence agencies too) is that Kayani did it! He was being pushed to a corner by Zardari, who was rapidly chipping away at his power at the behest of US. Apparently Zardari is wiling to give US a much freer hand in western Pak than Kayani. Kayani feared that Zardati may topple him and appoint another COAS. So he played this masterstroke. Zardari and Gillani were taken completely off guard by this hit.
There is no coherent state or government in Pakistan anymore, there are only personalities pulling the country in various directions. So let's only talk of personalities. My hunch (and that of the many world intelligence agencies too) is that Kayani did it! He was being pushed to a corner by Zardari, who was rapidly chipping away at his power at the behest of US. Apparently Zardari is wiling to give US a much freer hand in western Pak than Kayani. Kayani feared that Zardati may topple him and appoint another COAS. So he played this masterstroke. Zardari and Gillani were taken completely off guard by this hit.
girlfriend 3d golden map of cambodia
rongch60
07-14 02:40 AM
To be honest, do you think that a petition from 1 category from 1 country will change the way USCIS interpret the spillover rule? No way! Currently, the highest priority is to make sure that USCIS use up all visa numbers. Any waste will hurt both EB2 and EB3. EB3 petition will create confusion on the bills, waste times from USCIS, and potentially took advantage by anti-immigrant groups to stop spillover. Is there any law that clear stated the cross-country spillover? Please stop the fight and not take the risk of losing all cross-country spillover!
hairstyles Siem Reap street map (Cambodia
Macaca
12-30 06:23 PM
India-China Relations: It’s the economy, and no one’s stupid (http://idsa.in/system/files/IB_IndiaChinaRelations.pdf) By Joe Thomas Karackattu | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
The recent visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao clearly had a productive focus - SinoIndian economic ties have been re-enforced, and there has been an effort to re-balance the trading relationship. This Brief uses irony to communicate five propositions (i.e. the intended meaning of these five statements is the opposite of what is stated), that can be found in several discourses on Sino-Indian ties. It evaluates these propositions in the light of the tangible and intangible gains from Premier Wen Jiabao’s second official visit to India.
1. Obama’s visit had more substance for India
How do you weigh a visit by a foreign Head of State or Government – one that prods a relationship in an incremental way versus one that promises a turnaround from a low baseline? The political and strategic dimension of the India-US partnership received an immense boost with Obama’s visit, and so did the economy. However, with Wen Jiaobao’s visit, India and China have prepared the ground for what hopefully shapes up to be a balanced economic and a healthy political partnership. If Premier Wen has second-placed talk of India and China being rivals – surely the political gains are waiting to be realized. Incidentally, the MoUs signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit are worth $16 billion (against $10 billion worth of agreements signed during the Obama visit).
Re-balancing of the Indian deficit (roughly USD 20 billion) from its trade with China has been promised through enhanced trade facilitation in the pharma and IT/Engineering sectors, a proposed CEO’s forum, more openness to Indian agro products, greater presence in Chinese trade fairs, and the desire for a strategic economic partnership. The present focus on infrastructure financing in India through Chinese banks is demonstrative of a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides. China’s consumer price index (CPI) 1 , a key measure of inflation, hit a two-year high of 5.1 per cent year-on-year in November 2010. Meanwhile, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC; the equivalent of the RBI in India) raised banks’ reserve requirement ratio (the deposits mandated to be withheld) for the sixth time in 2010 as a sterilization measure to prevent excess money supply from adding to inflation. Under such circumstances, Chinese banks have been foraying into lending operations elsewhere as well (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s (ICBC) commercial property loan in summer 2010 to a group led by private-equity firm, the Carlyle Group, in the United States is a case in point)
Policy Focus: The push for horizontal investments from China i.e. market seeking FDI through local production seems to have received less attention. This is an area which needs to be explored fully to address employment generation in India, and for Chinese firms to have a visible household presence in India (similar to Korean and Japanese consumer durables, for instance).
2. China has not changed. It cannot be trusted. Politically, there seems to be no progress on resolving the border dispute, and in the economic sphere there seems to be an in-built incongruence in the growth trajectories of the two countries.
The 1962 war was the reflection of the variance in India and China’s diplomatic, ideological and political approach to bilateral ties and international affairs. Those were the years running up to the Sino-Soviet split, the US engagement in Korea, Taiwan, and the second Indochina war (all involving China), and the domestic misfortune of the Great Leap forward. China had real and perceived fears of India’s oscillation between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, today China is placed in different circumstances, both as a political power and as an economic power. It is now more deeply entrenched in the economic architecture of the world. China’s concern to develop its Western regions coupled with diminishing incentives to foreign investors on the East Coast implies a patient and consistent effort at domestic restructuring in China. The stimulus measures and other construction projects need to be absorbed, the idea of “soft infrastructure” over “hard infrastructure” i.e. transparency and corruption-control has to be pushed through, and inequity needs to be tackled both between cities and rural areas, and between provinces in China. That is a long-drawn process of reforming social security and healthcare in China, apart from administrative reforms relating to land and labour rights (hukou system).
Intuitively, the prospects of relying on Europe and the United States as consumer markets for China over the long term are dicey (imagine how long an economy growing at 8 to 10 per cent could rely on markets that grow at between 2 and 3 per cent?). The present incongruence in the growth trajectories of India and China is ascribed to the market-first approach in China versus the business-first approach in India’s liberalization of its economy. Almost as a visible consequence, China is a larger trading nation even as the private sector there is yet to benefit from lenient financial intermediation (the State plays a big role even today). India on the other hand has a promising private sector and vibrant secondary markets even as its integration into the international economy is hindered by relatively higher tariff barriers in the country. The absence of overlap in the key growthdrivers of both countries (Industry versus Services in China and India, respectively) actually presents the most important reason for India to work with China, and for China to work with India.
The economic imperatives for China to engage with the larger Asian region are borne out by the trends in consumption expenditures in this region. China presently is mired in the need to revive consumption expenditure internally, in order to offset the export-dependent economic engine of its growth. The Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010, the flagship annual statistical data book of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), indicates the role that Asia stands to play as an alternate consumer market in the long term. The resilience of the middle class in Asia during the 2008-09 recession is highlighted by an estimated USD 4.3 trillion in annual expenditures during the crisis (ADB 2010). This was nearly a third of the private consumption in OECD countries, and is projected to account for 43 per cent of the worldwide consumption in 2030.
Policy Focus: India and China have a real chance of promoting mutual economic growth and development if their economic ties are not ‘securitized’, and the issue of tariff (from India’s side) and non-tariff barriers (China’s side) and protectionism (both countries) is addressed. The CEO’s forum, for one, could initiate linkages with Chinese Universities to develop internship programmes drawing on China’s younger generation of graduates to visit Indian companies desirous of expanding operations in China.
As for border talks, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Premier Zhou Enlai agreed in the past to have mid-level bureaucrats handle talks for mediating the border issues (Hoffmann 1990: 32). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao have reached an understanding to have foreign ministers of the two countries deal with the vexed problem. Certainly, the level of engagement has been upgraded specifically vis-�-vis the border issue.
Another important point to note is that, as per the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project (October 2010), in 2009 46 per cent of Indians expressed a positive view of China, compared with just 34 per cent in 2010. The Chinese Ambassador to India may think that the fragility in India-China relations emerges from over-reaction to issues concerning China in India. However, the same report qualifies that only 3 per cent of Indians surveyed consider China as the greatest threat for India, whereas, despite a sanctioned media, more Chinese have negative opinion on India (only about one-third of Chinese respondents (32 per cent) have a favourable opinion).
So where does the fragility come from? Does it arise from the ‘looseness’ of a democratic apparatus to shape public opinion? But Chinese public opinion is negative despite the regimented approach to the dissemination of information. Clearly, even if it is not the final word, these perceptions reveal how both countries need to do more to genuinely take forward the elationship at the level of ordinary citizens. The leadership in both countries has to find ways to shape debates within their countries to soft-land negotiated outcomes, if there is a genuine and concerted effort to resolve the border issue, and other contentious issues that may arise.
Policy Focus: There is a need to cultivate individual perceptions of the other, at the level of citizens. This exercise could be executed at the level of greater tourist facilitation measures or exposure to popular culture through mass media. More Indian television programmes, dubbed in Chinese, should be promoted in China (currently only a few such programmes are broadcast in China). Surprisingly, Chinese programming (similar to NHK, DW-Asia or Russia Today) is not even on offer on most satellite networks in India. Events such as the ‘Festival of India in China’ or the ‘Festival of China in India’ should be promoted on a wider scale to involve citizen participation beyond the diplomatic corps.
The recent visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao clearly had a productive focus - SinoIndian economic ties have been re-enforced, and there has been an effort to re-balance the trading relationship. This Brief uses irony to communicate five propositions (i.e. the intended meaning of these five statements is the opposite of what is stated), that can be found in several discourses on Sino-Indian ties. It evaluates these propositions in the light of the tangible and intangible gains from Premier Wen Jiabao’s second official visit to India.
1. Obama’s visit had more substance for India
How do you weigh a visit by a foreign Head of State or Government – one that prods a relationship in an incremental way versus one that promises a turnaround from a low baseline? The political and strategic dimension of the India-US partnership received an immense boost with Obama’s visit, and so did the economy. However, with Wen Jiaobao’s visit, India and China have prepared the ground for what hopefully shapes up to be a balanced economic and a healthy political partnership. If Premier Wen has second-placed talk of India and China being rivals – surely the political gains are waiting to be realized. Incidentally, the MoUs signed during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit are worth $16 billion (against $10 billion worth of agreements signed during the Obama visit).
Re-balancing of the Indian deficit (roughly USD 20 billion) from its trade with China has been promised through enhanced trade facilitation in the pharma and IT/Engineering sectors, a proposed CEO’s forum, more openness to Indian agro products, greater presence in Chinese trade fairs, and the desire for a strategic economic partnership. The present focus on infrastructure financing in India through Chinese banks is demonstrative of a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides. China’s consumer price index (CPI) 1 , a key measure of inflation, hit a two-year high of 5.1 per cent year-on-year in November 2010. Meanwhile, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC; the equivalent of the RBI in India) raised banks’ reserve requirement ratio (the deposits mandated to be withheld) for the sixth time in 2010 as a sterilization measure to prevent excess money supply from adding to inflation. Under such circumstances, Chinese banks have been foraying into lending operations elsewhere as well (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s (ICBC) commercial property loan in summer 2010 to a group led by private-equity firm, the Carlyle Group, in the United States is a case in point)
Policy Focus: The push for horizontal investments from China i.e. market seeking FDI through local production seems to have received less attention. This is an area which needs to be explored fully to address employment generation in India, and for Chinese firms to have a visible household presence in India (similar to Korean and Japanese consumer durables, for instance).
2. China has not changed. It cannot be trusted. Politically, there seems to be no progress on resolving the border dispute, and in the economic sphere there seems to be an in-built incongruence in the growth trajectories of the two countries.
The 1962 war was the reflection of the variance in India and China’s diplomatic, ideological and political approach to bilateral ties and international affairs. Those were the years running up to the Sino-Soviet split, the US engagement in Korea, Taiwan, and the second Indochina war (all involving China), and the domestic misfortune of the Great Leap forward. China had real and perceived fears of India’s oscillation between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, today China is placed in different circumstances, both as a political power and as an economic power. It is now more deeply entrenched in the economic architecture of the world. China’s concern to develop its Western regions coupled with diminishing incentives to foreign investors on the East Coast implies a patient and consistent effort at domestic restructuring in China. The stimulus measures and other construction projects need to be absorbed, the idea of “soft infrastructure” over “hard infrastructure” i.e. transparency and corruption-control has to be pushed through, and inequity needs to be tackled both between cities and rural areas, and between provinces in China. That is a long-drawn process of reforming social security and healthcare in China, apart from administrative reforms relating to land and labour rights (hukou system).
Intuitively, the prospects of relying on Europe and the United States as consumer markets for China over the long term are dicey (imagine how long an economy growing at 8 to 10 per cent could rely on markets that grow at between 2 and 3 per cent?). The present incongruence in the growth trajectories of India and China is ascribed to the market-first approach in China versus the business-first approach in India’s liberalization of its economy. Almost as a visible consequence, China is a larger trading nation even as the private sector there is yet to benefit from lenient financial intermediation (the State plays a big role even today). India on the other hand has a promising private sector and vibrant secondary markets even as its integration into the international economy is hindered by relatively higher tariff barriers in the country. The absence of overlap in the key growthdrivers of both countries (Industry versus Services in China and India, respectively) actually presents the most important reason for India to work with China, and for China to work with India.
The economic imperatives for China to engage with the larger Asian region are borne out by the trends in consumption expenditures in this region. China presently is mired in the need to revive consumption expenditure internally, in order to offset the export-dependent economic engine of its growth. The Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010, the flagship annual statistical data book of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), indicates the role that Asia stands to play as an alternate consumer market in the long term. The resilience of the middle class in Asia during the 2008-09 recession is highlighted by an estimated USD 4.3 trillion in annual expenditures during the crisis (ADB 2010). This was nearly a third of the private consumption in OECD countries, and is projected to account for 43 per cent of the worldwide consumption in 2030.
Policy Focus: India and China have a real chance of promoting mutual economic growth and development if their economic ties are not ‘securitized’, and the issue of tariff (from India’s side) and non-tariff barriers (China’s side) and protectionism (both countries) is addressed. The CEO’s forum, for one, could initiate linkages with Chinese Universities to develop internship programmes drawing on China’s younger generation of graduates to visit Indian companies desirous of expanding operations in China.
As for border talks, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Premier Zhou Enlai agreed in the past to have mid-level bureaucrats handle talks for mediating the border issues (Hoffmann 1990: 32). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao have reached an understanding to have foreign ministers of the two countries deal with the vexed problem. Certainly, the level of engagement has been upgraded specifically vis-�-vis the border issue.
Another important point to note is that, as per the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project (October 2010), in 2009 46 per cent of Indians expressed a positive view of China, compared with just 34 per cent in 2010. The Chinese Ambassador to India may think that the fragility in India-China relations emerges from over-reaction to issues concerning China in India. However, the same report qualifies that only 3 per cent of Indians surveyed consider China as the greatest threat for India, whereas, despite a sanctioned media, more Chinese have negative opinion on India (only about one-third of Chinese respondents (32 per cent) have a favourable opinion).
So where does the fragility come from? Does it arise from the ‘looseness’ of a democratic apparatus to shape public opinion? But Chinese public opinion is negative despite the regimented approach to the dissemination of information. Clearly, even if it is not the final word, these perceptions reveal how both countries need to do more to genuinely take forward the elationship at the level of ordinary citizens. The leadership in both countries has to find ways to shape debates within their countries to soft-land negotiated outcomes, if there is a genuine and concerted effort to resolve the border issue, and other contentious issues that may arise.
Policy Focus: There is a need to cultivate individual perceptions of the other, at the level of citizens. This exercise could be executed at the level of greater tourist facilitation measures or exposure to popular culture through mass media. More Indian television programmes, dubbed in Chinese, should be promoted in China (currently only a few such programmes are broadcast in China). Surprisingly, Chinese programming (similar to NHK, DW-Asia or Russia Today) is not even on offer on most satellite networks in India. Events such as the ‘Festival of India in China’ or the ‘Festival of China in India’ should be promoted on a wider scale to involve citizen participation beyond the diplomatic corps.
dartkid31
05-24 12:46 PM
Folks,
I think if you one wants to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of H1B's or immigrant visas, then you can go ahead and label that person "anti-immigrant". I would be with you, saying that is definitely negative to America.
So far I haven't seen Lou Dobbs doing that though. All the time I watch the program I see that man bringing up legitimate concerns. Lou Dobbs is a hero for Americans. The fact is that in general, wages have been stagnated for the last five years. What I have seen Lou Dobbs bringing up is that H1B numbers should not be increased. Don't you think that is a fair and rational approach ? Tell me. Honestly, when I learned this provision that they want to increase H1B visas at 20% every year, that appeared quite of a stretch to me. Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?
"Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?"
I think thoughtful and rational are NOT two words you would use to describe a Lou Dobbs broadcast. :D
Extremely one sided, hateful, demagogry, those words would be more accurate.
I think if you one wants to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of H1B's or immigrant visas, then you can go ahead and label that person "anti-immigrant". I would be with you, saying that is definitely negative to America.
So far I haven't seen Lou Dobbs doing that though. All the time I watch the program I see that man bringing up legitimate concerns. Lou Dobbs is a hero for Americans. The fact is that in general, wages have been stagnated for the last five years. What I have seen Lou Dobbs bringing up is that H1B numbers should not be increased. Don't you think that is a fair and rational approach ? Tell me. Honestly, when I learned this provision that they want to increase H1B visas at 20% every year, that appeared quite of a stretch to me. Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?
"Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?"
I think thoughtful and rational are NOT two words you would use to describe a Lou Dobbs broadcast. :D
Extremely one sided, hateful, demagogry, those words would be more accurate.
unitednations
03-24 06:44 PM
Thanks UnitedNations for this discussion.
In the booming years of 99-00 you could see all these consulting companies having a ball. Personally I have seen people with no relevant skill set getting h1's approved in a totally unrelated job profile. I even have come across staffing companies who have hired recruiters as "business analyst's", now its highly unlikely that these companies could not find recruiters here. But the system was getting misused rampantly.
I have had experience with companies who with collusion of someone inside a company
"snagged" portion of revenue from a contract. It wasnt common for 3-4 companies to
act as middleman's ("layers") the final employee who actually worked getting literally
peanuts share of the contract amount. I think this still happens today from what I have heard from my friends.
USCIS had to respond in someway or the other. I am happy that they did but on the other hand I feel sorry for their employees who are probably innocent "collateral damage" victims
It makes me very uneasy as who knows what USCIS will come up with next. The longer our wait is there is a potential for more scrutiny and who knows what pitfall awaits us lurking somewhere where we least expect. Just because people misused the system we are all going to face the consequences.
When I first started to get to know consulatants and staffing companies; I thought that this whole bribe system; creating positions at end clients; how consultants got selected, etc., was a big racket.
However; when I did introspection of how things worked in my industry; I pretty much concluded that it was done in same way but at much, much higher levels.
USCIS is just keeping it pretty simple these days; show us that there is a job with an end client that requires a degree. They pretty much know that it is impossible. Even if you can get one; they pick on it pretty good and still deny it.
The system was actually designed for staffing companies when you think about it. When h-1b was first created; no one would have used it if it wasn't for staffing companies. Typical US companies wouldn't have the network to get foreign employees unless they were already here. To get them from a foreign country then the only companies who can really do so are the staffing companies.
The main reason that I can't get behind lifting of the country quota is exactly this reason. You have a lot of companies run by the same nationality who will only recruit their own people. The staffing companies don't advertise in Indonesia, Germany, Brazil, etc. They only go after their own people. The whole monopolization of visas was used to prevent this type of behaviour.
I always thought that there are people from around the world who want to come here but can't because they are not part of the "system". You can see this in the greencard lottery. Almost 9 million people apploy to get here through this. If they had their own country people looking to get them here then there would be a more equal distribution of visas.
I think people need to step back and think that this is one of the reasons why they have country quotas. No matter what people think that they re being hired for their skills and that employers don't care about their nationality; people need to understand that a "system" has been designed that is benefitting a few nationalities. Once you can get here then you can find your way. However, if you can't get here then you can't find your way.
In the booming years of 99-00 you could see all these consulting companies having a ball. Personally I have seen people with no relevant skill set getting h1's approved in a totally unrelated job profile. I even have come across staffing companies who have hired recruiters as "business analyst's", now its highly unlikely that these companies could not find recruiters here. But the system was getting misused rampantly.
I have had experience with companies who with collusion of someone inside a company
"snagged" portion of revenue from a contract. It wasnt common for 3-4 companies to
act as middleman's ("layers") the final employee who actually worked getting literally
peanuts share of the contract amount. I think this still happens today from what I have heard from my friends.
USCIS had to respond in someway or the other. I am happy that they did but on the other hand I feel sorry for their employees who are probably innocent "collateral damage" victims
It makes me very uneasy as who knows what USCIS will come up with next. The longer our wait is there is a potential for more scrutiny and who knows what pitfall awaits us lurking somewhere where we least expect. Just because people misused the system we are all going to face the consequences.
When I first started to get to know consulatants and staffing companies; I thought that this whole bribe system; creating positions at end clients; how consultants got selected, etc., was a big racket.
However; when I did introspection of how things worked in my industry; I pretty much concluded that it was done in same way but at much, much higher levels.
USCIS is just keeping it pretty simple these days; show us that there is a job with an end client that requires a degree. They pretty much know that it is impossible. Even if you can get one; they pick on it pretty good and still deny it.
The system was actually designed for staffing companies when you think about it. When h-1b was first created; no one would have used it if it wasn't for staffing companies. Typical US companies wouldn't have the network to get foreign employees unless they were already here. To get them from a foreign country then the only companies who can really do so are the staffing companies.
The main reason that I can't get behind lifting of the country quota is exactly this reason. You have a lot of companies run by the same nationality who will only recruit their own people. The staffing companies don't advertise in Indonesia, Germany, Brazil, etc. They only go after their own people. The whole monopolization of visas was used to prevent this type of behaviour.
I always thought that there are people from around the world who want to come here but can't because they are not part of the "system". You can see this in the greencard lottery. Almost 9 million people apploy to get here through this. If they had their own country people looking to get them here then there would be a more equal distribution of visas.
I think people need to step back and think that this is one of the reasons why they have country quotas. No matter what people think that they re being hired for their skills and that employers don't care about their nationality; people need to understand that a "system" has been designed that is benefitting a few nationalities. Once you can get here then you can find your way. However, if you can't get here then you can't find your way.
No comments:
Post a Comment