Macaca
12-23 10:53 AM
Pelosi's first year as House speaker marked by little change on war (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/23/MNOUU26C5.DTL&tsp=1) By Zachary Coile | SF Chronicle, Dec 23, 2007
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
wallpaper Never say never or forever and
Macaca
12-27 07:31 PM
'A Hole to Bury You'
A first-hand account of how China's police treats the citizens it's supposed to serve and protect. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576045152244293970.html)
By TENG BIAO | Wall Street Journal
On Dec. 23, the United Nations International Convention for the Protection of All Persons From Forced Disappearance came into force. China has declined to accede to this convention. My experience that same day is just one of many examples of how the authorities continue to falsely imprison Chinese citizens.
That evening, I was in the Xizhimen area of Beijing chatting with my colleagues Piao Xiang, Xu Zhiyong and Zhang Yongpan. Ms. Piao had been disappeared after she and I went to Dandong on Oct. 7 to argue the court case of Leng Guoquan, a man framed by the police for drug trafficking; she had only been released on Dec. 20. Her abductors had been officers from the state security squad of the Public Security Bureau. I asked her to narrate the entire process of her disappearance in detail.
Later, I suggested to Mr. Zhang, "Let's go and see Fan Yafeng's mom." The day before, we had contacted fellow human rights lawyer Fan Yafeng and found out that he was under strict house arrest. But he had said that his mother was going to be alone at home in the evening and so I thought we should go see her.
Because I used to go there frequently I remembered clearly where she lived. As Mr. Zhang and I entered the block of flats and started walking up the staircase, I had a feeling that someone was following us. Observing that we went to the third floor, a young security guard asked us whom we were visiting. We said, "We're seeing a friend." Immediately, he called out for someone else to come up.
We knocked on the door and were greeted by Mr. Fan's mother. But as we entered the flat, the security guard came with us, and a person in plainclothes stormed in just behind him. The man in plainclothes demanded to check our IDs in a very coarse manner. I asked him in a loud voice, "What sort of people are you? How can you enter a private residence without permission?"
The plainclothes man said, "I am a police officer. We want to check your ID cards." "You're a police officer? I want to see your police ID." "If I am telling you I'm a police officer, then that's what I am. What are you doing here?" "Is that your business? How can you prove you're a police officer if you don't show your police ID card?"
The situation was escalating. I ducked my head and used my phone to send out a message on Twitter, and Mr. Zhang made a phone call to a friend. It was then about half past eight. The plainclothes guy made a phone call asking for reinforcement. Later I learned that at that moment our own reinforcements were mobilizing.
Two police officers showed up. One of them showed us his police ID. I asked Mr. Zhang to note down his police ID number and name, Shi Ligang, and pass it on to our Twitter friends. Then they wanted to check our IDs. I said, "According to Article 15 of the National Identity Card Law you have no right to check them in the present situation."
He said, "We are conducting an investigation in accordance with the People's Police Law." I said, "You can only question people who are suspected of having broken a law. We've just come to a friend's home for a visit, so you have no right to question us."
We quarreled for some time, and that state security squad officer in plainclothes kept making phone calls asking for more people to come over. The situation was getting worse, so I sent another Twitter message.
I talked to Mr. Fan's mother and the older state security squad officer told her not to speak to me. I got angry. "You're not even disclosing your identity, do you think you can enter other people's flat as you please and order the flat-owner about�not to mention that that's illegal, it lacks every human feeling!"
"You should think more clearly. Don't talk so much about the law with me. Do you know where we are? We are on Communist Party territory!"
The state security squad officer later tried to beat me. I warned him, "As you haven't shown me any documentation, you don't even have the right to seek a conversation with me. Don't push me." Then he said, "Don't you know what place you are in? This is China! Now you've come here, don't think you can leave again!"
After about 15 minutes, a large contingent of police officers arrived. I was in the washroom at the time. I could hear the police dragging Mr. Zhang forcefully downstairs. The plainclothes man banged madly at the door of the washroom, cracking a hole into the thin wooden panel of the door. I said, "I just want to use the washroom!" He said, "You're not allowed to," and kept banging against the door. He inserted his hand through the hole he had made, and undid the latch. Several police officers dragged me out. The state security squad officer took away my glasses. I am severely near-sighted, and as a result I was quite unable to see clearly. Later, I wasn't even able to read a police officer's ID number.
I protested loudly against this treatment. A whole group of police officers pushed, shoved, pulled and dragged me down the stairs and into a police van. Mr. Zhang's glasses and mobile phone had also been taken away. As we were dragged away we were also beaten. My hand had been grabbed so violently that it was injured in a few places. A police officer wanted to take away my mobile phone, I resisted with all my force and he eventually desisted.
When we arrived at the Shuangyushu police station, I said, "You have no right to take us into a police station. You can't be ignorant of the provision of Article 9 of the Police Law!"
"Want to tell us what it says?"
"'In the following four sets of circumstances, the police may take citizens to a public security bureau for questioning: (1) if the person has been accused of having committed a crime, (2) if a person has been discovered at the suspected scene of a crime, (3) if a person is suspected of a crime and if their identity is not clear, (4) if a person carries goods with them that may have been stolen." And if you want to check a person's ID card, you can only do that in the following cases: (1) suspicion of illegal behavior, (2) control of a site, (3) sudden incidents severely endangering the social order, or (4) other situations stipulated in the law - and such a law stipulating other situations must have been passed by the National People's Congress or its Standing Committee." I knew this stuff inside out.
"But you are a person 'whose identity is unclear.'"
"But according to the law, persons whose identity is unclear can only be checked if they are 'suspected of having committed a crime.' I don't belong in that category." Since there are more and more activists nowadays who are familiar with these two legal provisions and use them to challenge the police, I've been told by police officers that they hate the very bones of the legislators who created them.
Mr. Zhang and I were taken to two different rooms on the second floor of the police station. A gang of police officers again came to wrestle my mobile phone from me; and there was another scuffle. All the things inside my pocket were taken out. I protested. Seven or eight police officers loudly insulted me. Two or three were swearing especially viciously, using mafia slang words to curse me.
A police officer shouted at me to sit; I pushed the chair over with my foot. Several officers rushed forward and twisted my arms, punched my head and choked me, and pushed me to the ground. They took me to another room. In the corridor I cried out, "I am a law teacher, I know whether or not you are violating the law." I said this primarily to make them understand that they were dealing with someone who knew the law, to make them refrain from acting rashly and inflicting too much pain�and it was also meant for the ears of Mr. Zhang and the officers who were interrogating him.
Several police officers pushed me into a corner and one guy came up and fiercely dragged at my tie until he finally managed to pull it off, and threw it to the floor. The police officers pointed at my nose and coarsely swore at me again, and again they cried, "Do you know where you are? If we beat you, what can you do?"
After a while, a police officer came in and said that we had been detained because we had gone to Fan Yafeng's home. One officer, who I heard addressed as Xu Ping, went from merely loudly interrogating to roaring accusations at me: "O ho, that's how it is! In that case, you belong to the enemy! F- your mother, you went to see Fan Yafeng! That c-! In that case we don't have to talk about legal constraints at all! And you motherf- won't get out of here again! You traitors, you dogs! Counter-revolutionaries! The Communist Party feeds you and pays you and you still don't acknowledge how good it is! You keep insulting the Party!� We will treat you just like an enemy!"
I was very curious. "How do you treat your enemies?"
"Like Falun Gong!"
"And how do you treat Falun Gong?"
"You'll find out by and by."
I felt a pang of horror.
A first-hand account of how China's police treats the citizens it's supposed to serve and protect. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576045152244293970.html)
By TENG BIAO | Wall Street Journal
On Dec. 23, the United Nations International Convention for the Protection of All Persons From Forced Disappearance came into force. China has declined to accede to this convention. My experience that same day is just one of many examples of how the authorities continue to falsely imprison Chinese citizens.
That evening, I was in the Xizhimen area of Beijing chatting with my colleagues Piao Xiang, Xu Zhiyong and Zhang Yongpan. Ms. Piao had been disappeared after she and I went to Dandong on Oct. 7 to argue the court case of Leng Guoquan, a man framed by the police for drug trafficking; she had only been released on Dec. 20. Her abductors had been officers from the state security squad of the Public Security Bureau. I asked her to narrate the entire process of her disappearance in detail.
Later, I suggested to Mr. Zhang, "Let's go and see Fan Yafeng's mom." The day before, we had contacted fellow human rights lawyer Fan Yafeng and found out that he was under strict house arrest. But he had said that his mother was going to be alone at home in the evening and so I thought we should go see her.
Because I used to go there frequently I remembered clearly where she lived. As Mr. Zhang and I entered the block of flats and started walking up the staircase, I had a feeling that someone was following us. Observing that we went to the third floor, a young security guard asked us whom we were visiting. We said, "We're seeing a friend." Immediately, he called out for someone else to come up.
We knocked on the door and were greeted by Mr. Fan's mother. But as we entered the flat, the security guard came with us, and a person in plainclothes stormed in just behind him. The man in plainclothes demanded to check our IDs in a very coarse manner. I asked him in a loud voice, "What sort of people are you? How can you enter a private residence without permission?"
The plainclothes man said, "I am a police officer. We want to check your ID cards." "You're a police officer? I want to see your police ID." "If I am telling you I'm a police officer, then that's what I am. What are you doing here?" "Is that your business? How can you prove you're a police officer if you don't show your police ID card?"
The situation was escalating. I ducked my head and used my phone to send out a message on Twitter, and Mr. Zhang made a phone call to a friend. It was then about half past eight. The plainclothes guy made a phone call asking for reinforcement. Later I learned that at that moment our own reinforcements were mobilizing.
Two police officers showed up. One of them showed us his police ID. I asked Mr. Zhang to note down his police ID number and name, Shi Ligang, and pass it on to our Twitter friends. Then they wanted to check our IDs. I said, "According to Article 15 of the National Identity Card Law you have no right to check them in the present situation."
He said, "We are conducting an investigation in accordance with the People's Police Law." I said, "You can only question people who are suspected of having broken a law. We've just come to a friend's home for a visit, so you have no right to question us."
We quarreled for some time, and that state security squad officer in plainclothes kept making phone calls asking for more people to come over. The situation was getting worse, so I sent another Twitter message.
I talked to Mr. Fan's mother and the older state security squad officer told her not to speak to me. I got angry. "You're not even disclosing your identity, do you think you can enter other people's flat as you please and order the flat-owner about�not to mention that that's illegal, it lacks every human feeling!"
"You should think more clearly. Don't talk so much about the law with me. Do you know where we are? We are on Communist Party territory!"
The state security squad officer later tried to beat me. I warned him, "As you haven't shown me any documentation, you don't even have the right to seek a conversation with me. Don't push me." Then he said, "Don't you know what place you are in? This is China! Now you've come here, don't think you can leave again!"
After about 15 minutes, a large contingent of police officers arrived. I was in the washroom at the time. I could hear the police dragging Mr. Zhang forcefully downstairs. The plainclothes man banged madly at the door of the washroom, cracking a hole into the thin wooden panel of the door. I said, "I just want to use the washroom!" He said, "You're not allowed to," and kept banging against the door. He inserted his hand through the hole he had made, and undid the latch. Several police officers dragged me out. The state security squad officer took away my glasses. I am severely near-sighted, and as a result I was quite unable to see clearly. Later, I wasn't even able to read a police officer's ID number.
I protested loudly against this treatment. A whole group of police officers pushed, shoved, pulled and dragged me down the stairs and into a police van. Mr. Zhang's glasses and mobile phone had also been taken away. As we were dragged away we were also beaten. My hand had been grabbed so violently that it was injured in a few places. A police officer wanted to take away my mobile phone, I resisted with all my force and he eventually desisted.
When we arrived at the Shuangyushu police station, I said, "You have no right to take us into a police station. You can't be ignorant of the provision of Article 9 of the Police Law!"
"Want to tell us what it says?"
"'In the following four sets of circumstances, the police may take citizens to a public security bureau for questioning: (1) if the person has been accused of having committed a crime, (2) if a person has been discovered at the suspected scene of a crime, (3) if a person is suspected of a crime and if their identity is not clear, (4) if a person carries goods with them that may have been stolen." And if you want to check a person's ID card, you can only do that in the following cases: (1) suspicion of illegal behavior, (2) control of a site, (3) sudden incidents severely endangering the social order, or (4) other situations stipulated in the law - and such a law stipulating other situations must have been passed by the National People's Congress or its Standing Committee." I knew this stuff inside out.
"But you are a person 'whose identity is unclear.'"
"But according to the law, persons whose identity is unclear can only be checked if they are 'suspected of having committed a crime.' I don't belong in that category." Since there are more and more activists nowadays who are familiar with these two legal provisions and use them to challenge the police, I've been told by police officers that they hate the very bones of the legislators who created them.
Mr. Zhang and I were taken to two different rooms on the second floor of the police station. A gang of police officers again came to wrestle my mobile phone from me; and there was another scuffle. All the things inside my pocket were taken out. I protested. Seven or eight police officers loudly insulted me. Two or three were swearing especially viciously, using mafia slang words to curse me.
A police officer shouted at me to sit; I pushed the chair over with my foot. Several officers rushed forward and twisted my arms, punched my head and choked me, and pushed me to the ground. They took me to another room. In the corridor I cried out, "I am a law teacher, I know whether or not you are violating the law." I said this primarily to make them understand that they were dealing with someone who knew the law, to make them refrain from acting rashly and inflicting too much pain�and it was also meant for the ears of Mr. Zhang and the officers who were interrogating him.
Several police officers pushed me into a corner and one guy came up and fiercely dragged at my tie until he finally managed to pull it off, and threw it to the floor. The police officers pointed at my nose and coarsely swore at me again, and again they cried, "Do you know where you are? If we beat you, what can you do?"
After a while, a police officer came in and said that we had been detained because we had gone to Fan Yafeng's home. One officer, who I heard addressed as Xu Ping, went from merely loudly interrogating to roaring accusations at me: "O ho, that's how it is! In that case, you belong to the enemy! F- your mother, you went to see Fan Yafeng! That c-! In that case we don't have to talk about legal constraints at all! And you motherf- won't get out of here again! You traitors, you dogs! Counter-revolutionaries! The Communist Party feeds you and pays you and you still don't acknowledge how good it is! You keep insulting the Party!� We will treat you just like an enemy!"
I was very curious. "How do you treat your enemies?"
"Like Falun Gong!"
"And how do you treat Falun Gong?"
"You'll find out by and by."
I felt a pang of horror.
tanu_75
07-28 03:52 PM
dont ever ever dare to compare India and USA.
A little touchy here are we. I thought we were skilled immigrants and could hold a mature conversation.
And the President should never wait for Illegal immigrants to pass Legal Immigration. In USA immigration means it is Legal. not illegal. He is playing politics with every one. Please understand that. The US unemployment on Tech sector is only around 3 % that is not a big issue.
First of all, the President doesn't create policy, the Congress does. And please answer my question of why he should focus on a few hundred thousands when millions are out of their jobs, economy is in crisis and a couple of wars to fight. I'm just saying in terms of priorities we don't fit and I'm fine with that even though from a selfish perspective it hurts us. With regard to the unemployment rate:
1. Not all EB immigrants are tech sector employees (esp in EB3)
2. Even if we consider the population of tech EB employees, some in the American Congress and public *could* argue that lots of these jobs could indeed be done by Americans if they are trained. If you look at the trend of outsourcing you know that it's really not that hard to find somebody who can code in Java/C++ etc. I'm not saying that's true but just saying that's an argument that could be given forward by people who say that the nation's overall unemployment rate could be helped by training people for tech oriented jobs where unemployment rate is low. This is already happening with science and tech initiatives at the middle/higher education level.
A little touchy here are we. I thought we were skilled immigrants and could hold a mature conversation.
And the President should never wait for Illegal immigrants to pass Legal Immigration. In USA immigration means it is Legal. not illegal. He is playing politics with every one. Please understand that. The US unemployment on Tech sector is only around 3 % that is not a big issue.
First of all, the President doesn't create policy, the Congress does. And please answer my question of why he should focus on a few hundred thousands when millions are out of their jobs, economy is in crisis and a couple of wars to fight. I'm just saying in terms of priorities we don't fit and I'm fine with that even though from a selfish perspective it hurts us. With regard to the unemployment rate:
1. Not all EB immigrants are tech sector employees (esp in EB3)
2. Even if we consider the population of tech EB employees, some in the American Congress and public *could* argue that lots of these jobs could indeed be done by Americans if they are trained. If you look at the trend of outsourcing you know that it's really not that hard to find somebody who can code in Java/C++ etc. I'm not saying that's true but just saying that's an argument that could be given forward by people who say that the nation's overall unemployment rate could be helped by training people for tech oriented jobs where unemployment rate is low. This is already happening with science and tech initiatives at the middle/higher education level.
2011 Old English tattoo Family
Macaca
02-18 01:11 PM
Mickey Goes to Washington (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302837.html) Lobbyists for America's richest mouse set out to persuade Congress to scare up $200 million to promote U.S. tourist destinations By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum | WP, Feb 17
more...
nojoke
09-26 07:17 PM
though its very tempting to support obama with all his elequent talk, I think action speaks louder than words. he has absolutely no history of doing anything in the senate, and has not worked in a bi-partisan way with the republicans to pass any thing. do you think all of a sudden as prez he's going to get things done. further his stance on matters changes as the wind blows. meanwhile mccain has a history of making things happen, even sometimes going against his party. Dem will be more interested in helping the illegals become permanent, and not the legals 'coz their sights are on the vote banks. reps in general are more pro-business, and will favor the legal as opposed to illegals. of course there are some who are against.
someone pointed out the days were better in the 90's...i do agree that was a period of boom in the us economy with the rise of the dot com companies. but towards the end of the 90's, the dot com going bust, the us economy was heading in recession. and adding to that the rise of other economic powers like china, india, russia, the competition grew intense, and started to hurt the US economy much. However to the credit of the repub prez the SU economy came out from the inital recession, and the overall unemployment % was only ~5.4%, the lower in several decades incl the 90's. I think it was only through the right economic and pro-business policies of this admin that helped in this. of course the wars and the housing bubble has brought us to this new economic situations. It would require the next admin to frame policies that would keep US out of next recession.
but with dems policies of higher taxes on business (of course higher taxes on you and me), and more govt spending using mine and your tax dollars (of course our ss which we might never see) to hand it out to the lazy, and good for nothing people, you'll def see the US economy going into deeper recession. on top of that the universal health care would see us going the way of CA and europe with health care rationing, and long lines.
I could go on adding the benefits e.g. favorable deals with india the repubs would bring, but I thinks this is good for now.
so I would suggest stop going with the age old mentality and blindly believing that the dems are best. Start to think rationally.
How is giving tax break to the business helping us in the time of recession? If your company is not selling products, it will hire more to do what? The tax cut will simply go to executives and there will be layoffs. Trickle down economy is a scam.
Did you compare Obama's tax plan with McCain's. Go to CNN and you will that you will get more from Obama than from McCain's tax cut. How is universal health care bad? There are 50million without healthcare here. Soon your company will say that it cannot pay your healthcare plans because it is getting costly. The middle men(insurance companies) maybe eating more of your money than the actual health care costs. The long lines are due to less available doctors, not because of universal healthcare.
"A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada. And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the U.S. media is out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC."
someone pointed out the days were better in the 90's...i do agree that was a period of boom in the us economy with the rise of the dot com companies. but towards the end of the 90's, the dot com going bust, the us economy was heading in recession. and adding to that the rise of other economic powers like china, india, russia, the competition grew intense, and started to hurt the US economy much. However to the credit of the repub prez the SU economy came out from the inital recession, and the overall unemployment % was only ~5.4%, the lower in several decades incl the 90's. I think it was only through the right economic and pro-business policies of this admin that helped in this. of course the wars and the housing bubble has brought us to this new economic situations. It would require the next admin to frame policies that would keep US out of next recession.
but with dems policies of higher taxes on business (of course higher taxes on you and me), and more govt spending using mine and your tax dollars (of course our ss which we might never see) to hand it out to the lazy, and good for nothing people, you'll def see the US economy going into deeper recession. on top of that the universal health care would see us going the way of CA and europe with health care rationing, and long lines.
I could go on adding the benefits e.g. favorable deals with india the repubs would bring, but I thinks this is good for now.
so I would suggest stop going with the age old mentality and blindly believing that the dems are best. Start to think rationally.
How is giving tax break to the business helping us in the time of recession? If your company is not selling products, it will hire more to do what? The tax cut will simply go to executives and there will be layoffs. Trickle down economy is a scam.
Did you compare Obama's tax plan with McCain's. Go to CNN and you will that you will get more from Obama than from McCain's tax cut. How is universal health care bad? There are 50million without healthcare here. Soon your company will say that it cannot pay your healthcare plans because it is getting costly. The middle men(insurance companies) maybe eating more of your money than the actual health care costs. The long lines are due to less available doctors, not because of universal healthcare.
"A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada. And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the U.S. media is out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC."
chanduv23
09-26 02:26 PM
OBAMA is for lesser H1B but more EB GC. He prefers workers who are entering the US to have intention to stay permanently than temporarily because it helps the economy.
That's the wisdom of Durbin amendment. Lesser H1B because you will get GC instead.
Everyone say "H1b is not good we want more GC". Then the whole thing moves towards a new points based system and everyone will support it saying - this will ensure US will have best and brightest. What happens to us???? We will be ignored
That's the wisdom of Durbin amendment. Lesser H1B because you will get GC instead.
Everyone say "H1b is not good we want more GC". Then the whole thing moves towards a new points based system and everyone will support it saying - this will ensure US will have best and brightest. What happens to us???? We will be ignored
more...
rbharol
04-08 01:04 AM
Guys,
In the bill summary, I do not see where it says that H1B extensions will not be
possible for those who have I-140 approved.
I-140 approval itself means that USCIS and DOL has agreed that this person
is needed for this position and AOS can be filed(If offcourse Visa numbers are
available).
(I am sorry I have not read the full text of the bill.)
In the bill summary, I do not see where it says that H1B extensions will not be
possible for those who have I-140 approved.
I-140 approval itself means that USCIS and DOL has agreed that this person
is needed for this position and AOS can be filed(If offcourse Visa numbers are
available).
(I am sorry I have not read the full text of the bill.)
2010 I have tattooed images from my
whattodo
07-11 01:58 PM
Her employer was not willing for her to start before SSN, so we had to wait. I hope that this will not be a problem.
That should not cause any problems.
On another note, one can start working as long as he/she has applied for SSN. One does NOT need ssn at hand to start working.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
That should not cause any problems.
On another note, one can start working as long as he/she has applied for SSN. One does NOT need ssn at hand to start working.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
ssa
07-13 10:59 PM
I agree. It would be 100 times easier to re-file under EB2 and port your PD individually than to get USCIS/DOL to change their rules (howsoever they choose to interpret it). Just see what % of our previous campaigns were successful in the past in spite of all our efforts...
On a related note, after reading this long thread I couldn't help but wish all other IV campaigns (admin fixes, fund raising, house bills) could arouse such passion and involvement from IV members. Now, I'm NOT saying any particular category (EB2 vs Eb3) volunteers more than the other - its just matter of individual initiative, period - but it seems somehow our collective psyche is at ease as long as we all are stuck in the rut as a whole. Efforts to get ALL of us out of this mess do not fire up this much passion..
On a related note, after reading this long thread I couldn't help but wish all other IV campaigns (admin fixes, fund raising, house bills) could arouse such passion and involvement from IV members. Now, I'm NOT saying any particular category (EB2 vs Eb3) volunteers more than the other - its just matter of individual initiative, period - but it seems somehow our collective psyche is at ease as long as we all are stuck in the rut as a whole. Efforts to get ALL of us out of this mess do not fire up this much passion..
hair tattoos of all time!
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
more...
rima1805
03-23 09:36 AM
my greencard is filed under EB3 category and it looks like a long wait. My PD is 2003 Nov and i am an indian. We've been debating whether to buy a house when 485 is pending. what is the risk involved? how many people are in a similar situation? I have twin boys and they are 3 yrs old now and it's getting increasingly difficult to keep them in an apartment. Now with housing market going down as well, we are in a tight spot and have to make a decision quickly. I would appreciate any suggestion in this regard.
We bought a townhome in my 1st yr of H1 as I had just got married and my wife (from India) was literally living out of her boxes in my 1-bed rm apt. My decision was based less on home being an investment (due to decling real est market, etc) and more on being a necessity. Try one of the "rent vs buy" online calculators to see how much more you would have to pay. For instance, I was shelling out ~1000 bucks a month on a decent 1 bed apt with garage; and now, I pay ~1500 on a 3 bed, 2.5 bath, 2 car garage townhome. This year I could also itemize my mortgage int payments and pay less tax too, where as the rent you pay every month goes straight into the drain! We recently had my parents from India stay for 6mo with comfort. Try that in an apt. In view of the GC situation, I'd go for a not-so-expensive but good neighborhood home so that you can 'enjoy' your life as others have rightly pointed out and sell it with lesser pain if you have to move & the housing market tanks. Good luck!
We bought a townhome in my 1st yr of H1 as I had just got married and my wife (from India) was literally living out of her boxes in my 1-bed rm apt. My decision was based less on home being an investment (due to decling real est market, etc) and more on being a necessity. Try one of the "rent vs buy" online calculators to see how much more you would have to pay. For instance, I was shelling out ~1000 bucks a month on a decent 1 bed apt with garage; and now, I pay ~1500 on a 3 bed, 2.5 bath, 2 car garage townhome. This year I could also itemize my mortgage int payments and pay less tax too, where as the rent you pay every month goes straight into the drain! We recently had my parents from India stay for 6mo with comfort. Try that in an apt. In view of the GC situation, I'd go for a not-so-expensive but good neighborhood home so that you can 'enjoy' your life as others have rightly pointed out and sell it with lesser pain if you have to move & the housing market tanks. Good luck!
hot Forever Family Tattoo
delax
07-13 01:27 PM
I like that splitting the overflow across EB2-EB3 idea. That does make it a lot more fair to a lot of people. Its not right that people with 2001 PD still dont have an approval (I have a 2006 PD, but have been here for ~8 years, so I know how frustrating it is to wait so long on temporary status)
At the outset, I am not against EB3, but lets think about this for a moment. Any logic that we use to break up spillover between EB2 and EB3 can also easily be applied to EB1 and EB2. I'll repeat an earlier post of mine. "How can EB1 of 2008 get the GC immediately when EB2-I (in my case) has to wait for more than 4 years - clearly preference is at play here".
Any split will artificially retrogress EB2 more than what it otherwise would have. Similarly one can always argue to artificially retrogress EB1 to give more visas to EB2 just because someone from EB2 is waiting for 4 years.
Isnt that against the law. Any break up of spill over visas invalidates the category preference as per current law.
Please also note that any unfavorable change to the EB1 category based on a hypothetical approval of an EB2/EB3 break up will invite the attention of Fortune 500 companies and prestigious research/educational institutions (who use EB1 the most) with all their political and financial resources at their disposal. That could put a halt to everything.
Irrational passion calls for dispassionate rationality.
At the outset, I am not against EB3, but lets think about this for a moment. Any logic that we use to break up spillover between EB2 and EB3 can also easily be applied to EB1 and EB2. I'll repeat an earlier post of mine. "How can EB1 of 2008 get the GC immediately when EB2-I (in my case) has to wait for more than 4 years - clearly preference is at play here".
Any split will artificially retrogress EB2 more than what it otherwise would have. Similarly one can always argue to artificially retrogress EB1 to give more visas to EB2 just because someone from EB2 is waiting for 4 years.
Isnt that against the law. Any break up of spill over visas invalidates the category preference as per current law.
Please also note that any unfavorable change to the EB1 category based on a hypothetical approval of an EB2/EB3 break up will invite the attention of Fortune 500 companies and prestigious research/educational institutions (who use EB1 the most) with all their political and financial resources at their disposal. That could put a halt to everything.
Irrational passion calls for dispassionate rationality.
more...
house Angelic Family Crest Tattoo
bigboy007
10-05 06:13 PM
But as many have pointed out , I have same doubts whether US will maintain its edge with all these issues facing.
Coming on to GC , its a mess already .. Dates even might retrogress more :-( but with new admin and initiatives like CIR07 if it passes again I dont what situation we might face.
Let us give Obama a chance and see what he does� We are already in deep shit and nothing worse can happen
Coming on to GC , its a mess already .. Dates even might retrogress more :-( but with new admin and initiatives like CIR07 if it passes again I dont what situation we might face.
Let us give Obama a chance and see what he does� We are already in deep shit and nothing worse can happen
tattoo Are Tattoos Safe?
BondJ
05-16 05:54 PM
Looks like, the letter sent out to India based business houses by the US senators has surprised the Commerce minister of India, Kamalnath. He is going take this up with US in the global trade meet at Brussels.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Kamal_Nath_surprised_on_H1-B_visa_issue/articleshow/2055323.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Kamal_Nath_surprised_on_H1-B_visa_issue/articleshow/2055323.cms
more...
pictures hairstyles family quotes for
Jerrome
08-07 04:57 PM
Menu
-----
Waiter: I've stewed liver, boiled tongue and frog's leg.
Customer: Don't tell me your problems. Give me the menu card.
Gangster's son
--------------
Q: What did the gangster's son tell his dad when he failed his examination?
A: Dad they questioned me for 3 hours but I never told them anything."
Dinner
-----
Wife : Do you want dinner?
Husband : Sure, what are my choices?
Wife : Yes and No.
Wife
----
First guy (proudly) : "My wife's an angel!"
Second guy: "You're lucky, mine's still alive."
-----
Waiter: I've stewed liver, boiled tongue and frog's leg.
Customer: Don't tell me your problems. Give me the menu card.
Gangster's son
--------------
Q: What did the gangster's son tell his dad when he failed his examination?
A: Dad they questioned me for 3 hours but I never told them anything."
Dinner
-----
Wife : Do you want dinner?
Husband : Sure, what are my choices?
Wife : Yes and No.
Wife
----
First guy (proudly) : "My wife's an angel!"
Second guy: "You're lucky, mine's still alive."
dresses forever/family in Willies Work
lfwf
08-06 03:38 PM
Dude, I did not personally bash anyone let alone give you a red dot, I was just putting forth my opinions which you and some of our ilk did not like which is fair enough.
You guys saying guys with Masters are from heaven compared to EB3 guys getting 5+ years experience is like personally bashing each and everyone who falls in that category.
You repeatedly insist on looking at things that way. No one is from heaven and no one is precluding Bs+5 from applying for EB2. They should, why not?
The question is only: Is it fair for them to get that entire 5 years in their PD as a jump on those who filed EB2 after an advanced degree. That's it. Nothing more or less than that. Please don't read needless nonsense into this. I have no interest in inferior, superior, holier, more genuine etc.
Nor am i bashing experience and all that. the question simply whether the advantage for going from EB3 to Eb2 should be magnified by allowing the old PD to be ported with it. This kind of situation puts people like me (7 years of education! multiple degrees...) at a serious disadvantage. We would potentially have to wait for every single EB3 that came to the US >5 years ago (even well after we came) to get their GC before ever standing a chance.
Because they would all be BS+5....and we can't match their PDs. And we have waited as long or more.
You guys saying guys with Masters are from heaven compared to EB3 guys getting 5+ years experience is like personally bashing each and everyone who falls in that category.
You repeatedly insist on looking at things that way. No one is from heaven and no one is precluding Bs+5 from applying for EB2. They should, why not?
The question is only: Is it fair for them to get that entire 5 years in their PD as a jump on those who filed EB2 after an advanced degree. That's it. Nothing more or less than that. Please don't read needless nonsense into this. I have no interest in inferior, superior, holier, more genuine etc.
Nor am i bashing experience and all that. the question simply whether the advantage for going from EB3 to Eb2 should be magnified by allowing the old PD to be ported with it. This kind of situation puts people like me (7 years of education! multiple degrees...) at a serious disadvantage. We would potentially have to wait for every single EB3 that came to the US >5 years ago (even well after we came) to get their GC before ever standing a chance.
Because they would all be BS+5....and we can't match their PDs. And we have waited as long or more.
more...
makeup Roberto#39;s tattoo
langagadu
03-29 03:47 PM
...
girlfriend got a new gun tattoo,
Marphad
12-23 05:09 PM
It seems there are enough pathetic liars who are propagating lies like "99% of terrorist are muslims" (ever heard of bodo, tamil tigers, Khalistan movement, BJP, VHP, SP?) , or about population of muslims in india... have you done a survey? Or perhaps the government deliberately cooked demographics to upease brahman dominance? It seems quite convincing reading your comments that a particular segmant of hindu group carries very deep hatred of muslims in them and propagate it by lies, murder and debauchary... wonder who you god(s) are, or is godse your god!
You included BJP in terrorist group list? Either you are ignorant, lack of information, complete idiot, out of your mind or Pakistani.
You included BJP in terrorist group list? Either you are ignorant, lack of information, complete idiot, out of your mind or Pakistani.
hairstyles Forever Yours Tattoo Gallery
DallasBlue
07-08 12:00 AM
I guess a good CPA can be lot of help as well. if your husband doesnt have paystubbs and w2 company/CPA's can actually go back and correct them for mistakes/miscalculations.
delax
07-13 01:27 PM
I like that splitting the overflow across EB2-EB3 idea. That does make it a lot more fair to a lot of people. Its not right that people with 2001 PD still dont have an approval (I have a 2006 PD, but have been here for ~8 years, so I know how frustrating it is to wait so long on temporary status)
At the outset, I am not against EB3, but lets think about this for a moment. Any logic that we use to break up spillover between EB2 and EB3 can also easily be applied to EB1 and EB2. I'll repeat an earlier post of mine. "How can EB1 of 2008 get the GC immediately when EB2-I (in my case) has to wait for more than 4 years - clearly preference is at play here".
Any split will artificially retrogress EB2 more than what it otherwise would have. Similarly one can always argue to artificially retrogress EB1 to give more visas to EB2 just because someone from EB2 is waiting for 4 years.
Isnt that against the law. Any break up of spill over visas invalidates the category preference as per current law.
Please also note that any unfavorable change to the EB1 category based on a hypothetical approval of an EB2/EB3 break up will invite the attention of Fortune 500 companies and prestigious research/educational institutions (who use EB1 the most) with all their political and financial resources at their disposal. That could put a halt to everything.
Irrational passion calls for dispassionate rationality.
At the outset, I am not against EB3, but lets think about this for a moment. Any logic that we use to break up spillover between EB2 and EB3 can also easily be applied to EB1 and EB2. I'll repeat an earlier post of mine. "How can EB1 of 2008 get the GC immediately when EB2-I (in my case) has to wait for more than 4 years - clearly preference is at play here".
Any split will artificially retrogress EB2 more than what it otherwise would have. Similarly one can always argue to artificially retrogress EB1 to give more visas to EB2 just because someone from EB2 is waiting for 4 years.
Isnt that against the law. Any break up of spill over visas invalidates the category preference as per current law.
Please also note that any unfavorable change to the EB1 category based on a hypothetical approval of an EB2/EB3 break up will invite the attention of Fortune 500 companies and prestigious research/educational institutions (who use EB1 the most) with all their political and financial resources at their disposal. That could put a halt to everything.
Irrational passion calls for dispassionate rationality.
riva2005
04-08 01:11 PM
Guys you are unnecessarily raking your brain over this. This is a blatant anti immigrant anti eb green card bill disguised as h1 reform. The people who wrote this bill are the same people who were carrying placards saying "legal immigrants welcome, no to illegal immigration". Now do you really believe them? Even Jeff sessions was one of them and he is the number one opposer of legal eb immigrants.
Pitha,
You're going in the right direction. But a slight correction here.
These guys...Sessions, Grassley etc dont really support or oppose anything on principle. Its not like they have made up their mind about what they think is right or wrong for the country. They are responding to their campaign contributors. Plain and simple.
I can cite 2 such examples:
Firstly, Senator Dianne Feinstein. She was against Amnesty. Thru and thru. Now, the spinach and lettuce growers lobbied her. Suddenly, she supported and sponsored Agjobs bill. And what does Agjobs bill have in it? Mini-Amnesty, but only limited to agricultural workers. And this change of heart didnt even take 6 months. Elected officials tend to be very flexible when you are suffering from weight of heavy and burdensome cash in your pockets that needs to be relieved.
Another example, our own dear Senator Chuck Grassley from the State of Iowa. He is strong opponent of Amnesty. Believes in the rule of law. Always opposed to legalizing the illegals ... except when he doesnt. When does he not oppose legalization? When is co-sponsors Agjobs bill with Sen. Dianne Feinstein? You see, Iowa isnt exactly the Silicon Priarie if Bay Area is the silicon valley so he dunt give damn about them damn H1B scum. But Iowa does grow quite a bit of corn. And suddenly the corn has become a cash-rich crop due to Ethanol. So the farmers of Iowa had a heavy burden of the extra cash in their pockets. Senator Chuck Grassley relieved that extra weight of cash from corn growers and chose to co-sponsor the Agjobs bill that gives Amnesty to agricultural workers.
This is the data from the Federal Election commission that tracks money in politics and www.opensecrets.org where there is a more user-friendly way to find out the same data of who gives money to whom in politics and lobbying.
Senator Dianne Feinstein : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00007364&cycle=2006&expand=A07
TOTAL Agribusiness $97,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $47,000
American Cotton Shippers Assn $1,000
Blue Diamond Growers $3,000
Calcot Ltd $1,500
California Avocado Proponent $1,000
California Citrus Mutual $3,000
California Cotton Growers Assn $500
California Grape & Tree Fruit League $1,500
California Rice Industry Assn Fund $1,000
Farmers' Rice Cooperative $8,000
Florida Crystals $1,000
Louisiana Rice PAC $1,000
National Assn of Wheat Growers $1,000
National Cotton Council $1,000
National Potato Council $1,000
Nisei Farmers League $2,000
Producers Rice Mill Inc $1,000
Raisin Bargaining Assn $3,500
Riceland Foods $1,000
Southern Minn Beet Sugar Co-op $4,000
Sun-Maid Growers of California $2,000
Sunkist Growers $1,000
USA Rice Federation $2,000
Western Growers Assn $1,000
Western Pistachio Assn $4,000
Total Agricultural Services/Products $17,000
American Assn of Nurserymen $2,000
American Veterinary Medical Assn $2,000
California Westside Farmers Inc $1,000
Farm Credit Council $6,000
Friant Water PAC $2,000
National Council of Farmer Co-ops $1,000
Nestle Purina PetCare $1,000
Society of American Florists $2,000
Senator Chuck Grassley : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00001758&cycle=2006&expand=P
Total Agribusiness $34,500
Crop Production & Basic Processing $1,000
Dairy $5,000
Poultry & Eggs $1,000
Livestock $1,000
Agricultural Services/Products $14,500
Food Processing & Sales $8,000
Forestry & Forest Products $4,000
Pitha,
You're going in the right direction. But a slight correction here.
These guys...Sessions, Grassley etc dont really support or oppose anything on principle. Its not like they have made up their mind about what they think is right or wrong for the country. They are responding to their campaign contributors. Plain and simple.
I can cite 2 such examples:
Firstly, Senator Dianne Feinstein. She was against Amnesty. Thru and thru. Now, the spinach and lettuce growers lobbied her. Suddenly, she supported and sponsored Agjobs bill. And what does Agjobs bill have in it? Mini-Amnesty, but only limited to agricultural workers. And this change of heart didnt even take 6 months. Elected officials tend to be very flexible when you are suffering from weight of heavy and burdensome cash in your pockets that needs to be relieved.
Another example, our own dear Senator Chuck Grassley from the State of Iowa. He is strong opponent of Amnesty. Believes in the rule of law. Always opposed to legalizing the illegals ... except when he doesnt. When does he not oppose legalization? When is co-sponsors Agjobs bill with Sen. Dianne Feinstein? You see, Iowa isnt exactly the Silicon Priarie if Bay Area is the silicon valley so he dunt give damn about them damn H1B scum. But Iowa does grow quite a bit of corn. And suddenly the corn has become a cash-rich crop due to Ethanol. So the farmers of Iowa had a heavy burden of the extra cash in their pockets. Senator Chuck Grassley relieved that extra weight of cash from corn growers and chose to co-sponsor the Agjobs bill that gives Amnesty to agricultural workers.
This is the data from the Federal Election commission that tracks money in politics and www.opensecrets.org where there is a more user-friendly way to find out the same data of who gives money to whom in politics and lobbying.
Senator Dianne Feinstein : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00007364&cycle=2006&expand=A07
TOTAL Agribusiness $97,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $47,000
American Cotton Shippers Assn $1,000
Blue Diamond Growers $3,000
Calcot Ltd $1,500
California Avocado Proponent $1,000
California Citrus Mutual $3,000
California Cotton Growers Assn $500
California Grape & Tree Fruit League $1,500
California Rice Industry Assn Fund $1,000
Farmers' Rice Cooperative $8,000
Florida Crystals $1,000
Louisiana Rice PAC $1,000
National Assn of Wheat Growers $1,000
National Cotton Council $1,000
National Potato Council $1,000
Nisei Farmers League $2,000
Producers Rice Mill Inc $1,000
Raisin Bargaining Assn $3,500
Riceland Foods $1,000
Southern Minn Beet Sugar Co-op $4,000
Sun-Maid Growers of California $2,000
Sunkist Growers $1,000
USA Rice Federation $2,000
Western Growers Assn $1,000
Western Pistachio Assn $4,000
Total Agricultural Services/Products $17,000
American Assn of Nurserymen $2,000
American Veterinary Medical Assn $2,000
California Westside Farmers Inc $1,000
Farm Credit Council $6,000
Friant Water PAC $2,000
National Council of Farmer Co-ops $1,000
Nestle Purina PetCare $1,000
Society of American Florists $2,000
Senator Chuck Grassley : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00001758&cycle=2006&expand=P
Total Agribusiness $34,500
Crop Production & Basic Processing $1,000
Dairy $5,000
Poultry & Eggs $1,000
Livestock $1,000
Agricultural Services/Products $14,500
Food Processing & Sales $8,000
Forestry & Forest Products $4,000
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar