waitnwatch
05-24 12:03 PM
Communique,
I would like to differ on the point of keeping H1-B numbers constant. To hire a H1-B a company has to show that they didnot get a US citizen with even the minimal qualifications for that particular job. Also the salary for the job has to be certified by the Department of Labor as at least the market rate if not higher. Under this scenario why should there be this artificial and arbitrary limit. Again most of the numbers nowadays is being picked up by the consultants so if a regular company like say Caterpillar wants to hire an engineer the numbers are just not available.
While you do make a statement supporting no change in the numbers you justify your point by pointing to salary stagnation. Can you show a direct correlation between H1B and salary stagnation. I would more likely point to outsourcing as being more relevant to salary stagnation. If companies have a hard time hiring they would be more prone to outsourcing and it is always better to have a salary stagnated job in the US than not having the job at all.
Finally about Lou Dobbs..... I have much better use for my time than watching him. His journalism is worse than tabloid journalism though I have the suspicion that he may have an eye on joining the National Enquirer after immigration is done as he would have nothing more to say to his current audience.
My two cents!
I would like to differ on the point of keeping H1-B numbers constant. To hire a H1-B a company has to show that they didnot get a US citizen with even the minimal qualifications for that particular job. Also the salary for the job has to be certified by the Department of Labor as at least the market rate if not higher. Under this scenario why should there be this artificial and arbitrary limit. Again most of the numbers nowadays is being picked up by the consultants so if a regular company like say Caterpillar wants to hire an engineer the numbers are just not available.
While you do make a statement supporting no change in the numbers you justify your point by pointing to salary stagnation. Can you show a direct correlation between H1B and salary stagnation. I would more likely point to outsourcing as being more relevant to salary stagnation. If companies have a hard time hiring they would be more prone to outsourcing and it is always better to have a salary stagnated job in the US than not having the job at all.
Finally about Lou Dobbs..... I have much better use for my time than watching him. His journalism is worse than tabloid journalism though I have the suspicion that he may have an eye on joining the National Enquirer after immigration is done as he would have nothing more to say to his current audience.
My two cents!
wallpaper Follow this link: Makeup for
akred
08-06 01:26 PM
Seems to me that the problem as usual is that too many people qualify for EB2 thus slowing down "genuine" cases.
The solution to this is in the hands of the DOL. DOL can reduce the number of people qualifying for EB2 by simply doing away with the "business necessity" exception.
In other words without this exception, people will qualify for EB2 only if their field requires an advanced degree due to law (e.g. doctors) or if an advanced degree is customary in the profession (e.g. academia). This will reduce the flow to EB2 by disqualifying the large number of professions where an advanced degree is merely discretionary and not mandatory (e.g. MS, MBA)
But this is a very draconian measure and hopefully does not come into play.
The solution to this is in the hands of the DOL. DOL can reduce the number of people qualifying for EB2 by simply doing away with the "business necessity" exception.
In other words without this exception, people will qualify for EB2 only if their field requires an advanced degree due to law (e.g. doctors) or if an advanced degree is customary in the profession (e.g. academia). This will reduce the flow to EB2 by disqualifying the large number of professions where an advanced degree is merely discretionary and not mandatory (e.g. MS, MBA)
But this is a very draconian measure and hopefully does not come into play.
delax
07-13 09:48 PM
[QUOTE=kutra;262395]Disclaimer: I am an EB3-Indian with a PD of Oct 2003.
Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?
I am not trying to convince anybody about the merits. The original post asked for comments which I offered. PL read this post of mine
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
I am not at all surprised at the 'backlash'.
I appreciate your input and candor
Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?
I am not trying to convince anybody about the merits. The original post asked for comments which I offered. PL read this post of mine
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
I am not at all surprised at the 'backlash'.
I appreciate your input and candor
2011 eye makeup for blue eyes.
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.
more...
diptam
08-05 04:37 PM
I was eligible for both EB2 and EB3 when my GC labor was filed - my employer filed it in EB3 because the queue is longer and i remain with them for longer duration. I had about 390 days of H clock left so arguing with that employer and finding another one was also not an option because for getting H extension beyond 6 yrs needs the GC labor to be more than 365 days old.
Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.
Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.
2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.
If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.
Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.
2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.
If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
NKR
09-30 02:55 PM
I think a lot of AC21 cases are getting rejected because of the revocation of I140, Companies don't want to keep the people on their list if he/she is not working, because they have to prove the ability to pay for all those people as well. so they are revoking the I140 for people who are not with them anyore to reduce number of people in their list with USCIS.
How hard is it to figure out that people used AC21 and moved to another company, so the previous employer is out of the picture?. Why should the previous employer�s ability to pay matter?.
How hard is it to figure out that people used AC21 and moved to another company, so the previous employer is out of the picture?. Why should the previous employer�s ability to pay matter?.
more...
spicy_guy
07-29 04:20 PM
I am no supporter of either party. To be fair, the economy could have collapsed without him and most of us could have been back home by now.
Rightly said. He has had bigger problems to deal with than LEGAL immigration. Even if he wants to think about immigration, its going to be much / all about ILLigal immigrants.
Because thats what Americans want to fix first.
Rightly said. He has had bigger problems to deal with than LEGAL immigration. Even if he wants to think about immigration, its going to be much / all about ILLigal immigrants.
Because thats what Americans want to fix first.
2010 Eye Makeup for Deep Set Eyes
manub
07-07 07:45 PM
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
more...
qualified_trash
08-11 11:15 AM
I know this is unrelated to the goals of IV. How about suing the Maxwell guy for libel?
You cannot sue for libel if the statement made had information that was substantially true (not necessarily all true). In this case, he has made a statement that is substantially false and libelous in nature.
By calling people who come to the US on H1B visa or students who convert to H1B terrorists, I believe we can and should try to involve companies such as MS etc in this effort.
And here is my message sent to the program using the feedback form:
In the Lou Dobbs Tonight, which aired on Aired August 10, 2006 - 18:00 ET, Michael Maxwell asserted that H1B program is "being gamed by both terrorists and foreign agents". This is an insult to tax paying H1B holders such as myself.
If CNN or Michael Maxwell, could have shown one instance of a H1B holder, who has been convicted of crimes such as the ones committed by terrorists, it would have been a lot more credible.
I know "Lou Dobbs Tonight" is a talk show. To remain credible though my strong advise to Lou and CNN is this:
Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk.
You cannot sue for libel if the statement made had information that was substantially true (not necessarily all true). In this case, he has made a statement that is substantially false and libelous in nature.
By calling people who come to the US on H1B visa or students who convert to H1B terrorists, I believe we can and should try to involve companies such as MS etc in this effort.
And here is my message sent to the program using the feedback form:
In the Lou Dobbs Tonight, which aired on Aired August 10, 2006 - 18:00 ET, Michael Maxwell asserted that H1B program is "being gamed by both terrorists and foreign agents". This is an insult to tax paying H1B holders such as myself.
If CNN or Michael Maxwell, could have shown one instance of a H1B holder, who has been convicted of crimes such as the ones committed by terrorists, it would have been a lot more credible.
I know "Lou Dobbs Tonight" is a talk show. To remain credible though my strong advise to Lou and CNN is this:
Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk.
hair Makeup for Eyeglass Wearers
dealsnet
01-07 04:49 PM
You lived in India and hate India, because of your wicked religion.
Equating Bombay with Palastine is only a traitor can do.
Even passive support is act of betrayel.
Evil will be destoyed, it is God's will. They are preparing the kids for suicide bomber. So it is their fate to die little early, without harming any one.
Any way your religion and its founder are blasphamy for real children of God.
Only retard minded can follow it. Do suicide bomb to get 72 virgins. If any one of the virgin is a lesbian, what will do ?. If the guy is old, do he get viagara???They don't know in heaven no sex. No flesh, people in spiritual state.
I know you won't respond me anymore. Because you know your believe/ideology/prophecy/unjust acts will be exposed here.
Equating Bombay with Palastine is only a traitor can do.
Even passive support is act of betrayel.
Evil will be destoyed, it is God's will. They are preparing the kids for suicide bomber. So it is their fate to die little early, without harming any one.
Any way your religion and its founder are blasphamy for real children of God.
Only retard minded can follow it. Do suicide bomb to get 72 virgins. If any one of the virgin is a lesbian, what will do ?. If the guy is old, do he get viagara???They don't know in heaven no sex. No flesh, people in spiritual state.
I know you won't respond me anymore. Because you know your believe/ideology/prophecy/unjust acts will be exposed here.
more...
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
hot makeup for ig eyes. natural
alterego
11-21 06:02 PM
So wait a minute!
Endless discussions on Lou Dobbs are ok but starting a "Happy Thanksgiving" stress relief thread gets closed by the moderators??
Half the stuff written in this thread is not related to immigration either, how about closing this thread and every other non-immigration related thead "Supermoderators"?
Ordinarily I would agree with this suggestion. However Lou Dobbs is such a virulent, persistent critic of all kinds of immigration that, I find his rants are relevant to us as an immigrant community. Like it or not he does have a large viewership and the pulpit..................that he chats pure S*** is unfortunate. Populist journalists are a relatively new tragedy to this land. One which the last elections have taught me this strong nation can withstand.
Endless discussions on Lou Dobbs are ok but starting a "Happy Thanksgiving" stress relief thread gets closed by the moderators??
Half the stuff written in this thread is not related to immigration either, how about closing this thread and every other non-immigration related thead "Supermoderators"?
Ordinarily I would agree with this suggestion. However Lou Dobbs is such a virulent, persistent critic of all kinds of immigration that, I find his rants are relevant to us as an immigrant community. Like it or not he does have a large viewership and the pulpit..................that he chats pure S*** is unfortunate. Populist journalists are a relatively new tragedy to this land. One which the last elections have taught me this strong nation can withstand.
more...
house Pictures of BRIDAL MAKEUP FOR
NKR
08-05 08:33 AM
The said person should have been aware of what he or she was getting into. Blaming your hardship on other people and trying to get mileage out of it is hardly an honest way............would you agree?
So an employer cheating him into applying in EB3 is an honest way?
So an employer cheating him into applying in EB3 is an honest way?
tattoo Eye Makeup For Blondes.
Macaca
12-26 08:37 AM
Freshmen Padding Their Independence (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/25/AR2007122500994.html?hpid=sec-politics) Procedural Votes Become Safe Nays By Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 26, 2007
Half a dozen freshman Democrats took to the House floor one late-October morning to cast their lot with Republicans.
Their actions went unpunished by the Democratic leadership that day, as they have on many other occasions in recent weeks. The symbolic gesture -- casting nay votes on approving the House Journal, essentially the minutes of the previous day -- would have no bearing on the leadership's agenda.
While they overwhelmingly support that agenda, the bloc of freshmen has begun casting votes against such minor procedural motions in an effort, Democratic sources and Republican critics say, to demonstrate their independence from their leadership. The number of votes that the potentially vulnerable newcomers to Capitol Hill cast against House leaders is tallied and watched closely by interest groups and political foes.
Such is the political life of many of the 42 freshman House Democrats, a sizable number of them moderates and conservatives who must straddle the fence between supporting their party's interests and distancing themselves from a mostly liberal leadership as they gear up for their first reelection battle next fall.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other members of the party's leadership are happy to tolerate the independence on procedural matters. Less than three hours after opposing the late-October journal vote, the same six freshmen sided with Pelosi as Democrats tried, and failed, to override President Bush's veto of a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years, legislation that Pelosi has called her "crown jewel."
"I'm viewed as an independent. I'm viewed as a conservative Democrat," said Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.), the first freshman to regularly oppose his party's leadership on the journal vote.
Like several others, Altmire offered no explanation for voting against all but one of 18 roll calls on the routine measure, adding that he had no "pre-planned" rationale for the votes. "I'm certainly not going to win or lose my reelection based on my journal votes," he said.
But the first reelection campaign in his conservative-leaning western Pennsylvania district could be a tough one. Bush won there by a comfortable nine percentage points in 2004. Districts such as Altmire's fueled the Democratic takeover of the House last year. They are blue-collar in attitude and red-hued in politics, particularly on issues such as abortion and gun rights.
Dubbed the "majority makers" by Pelosi's leadership team, the freshmen have become a major front in the Democrats' battle to sustain and expand their majority next fall.
Stuart Rothenberg, an independent analyst and author of the Rothenberg Political Report, said Republican hopes for shrinking the Democratic majority begin with what he calls "snapback candidates," who rode into office under the last election cycle's optimal conditions for Democrats and now face their first reelection contests.
Protecting the 42 freshman Democrats, the largest partisan class since 73 Republicans took office in 1994, has been the top priority for key Democratic strategists such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). The freshmen get special treatment from leaders, including a weekly meeting with Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.). And they receive frequent advice on how to vote from Emanuel and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Seven of the rookies have more than $1 million in cash on hand, and according to Rothenberg, more than half are in safe positions to win reelection. In addition, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee holds a more than 11-to-1 cash advantage over its Republican counterpart, a potential financial backstop for endangered freshmen.
But the political environment has turned toxic in recent months as Democrats have been stymied in their effort to take Congress in their self-proclaimed new direction. Opinion polls show public approval ratings for Congress mired in the 20s, considerably lower than Bush's rating.
In recent months, Democrats in battleground districts have been criticized by Republicans, who have tried to paint them as close to the new House leadership.
"While these Democrats might claim to be independent voices for their districts, the differences between them and Nancy Pelosi are purely aesthetic," said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. This year, the GOP committee launched a Web site to track the percentage of votes that 28 of the freshmen cast with Pelosi, whom Republicans say will be a polarizing figure in conservative districts next fall.
That is why procedural votes are important to freshmen, according to Democratic aides. House Republicans this year turned to a procedure known as a "motion to recommit," offering what is typically a routine method of sending bills back to committee as politically charged amendments. With a wink and a nod from Emanuel and Hoyer, some endangered freshmen frequently vote with Republicans on tricky GOP motions to keep their votes from being used against them in 30-second campaign sound bites.
Some freshman Democrats have taken the idea of voting against their party leadership on procedural votes one step further, opposing mundane matters such as the journal vote.
Altmire has sided with the opposition in 17 of 18 journal roll calls this year. Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) has cast 15 votes with the GOP. In the spring, only a few freshmen voted against the journal, but one recent vote drew 13 freshmen in opposition, and in another, 11 voted nay. Now a half-dozen or more regularly oppose whenever a roll call is held.
Democratic leaders acknowledge that they have encouraged the freshmen to sometimes vote with Republicans on politically difficult issues, but deny that they have had any input on the Congressional Record votes.
"We've given them very simple advice: Make sure you vote your district," Van Hollen said.
As a result, Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), for example, has one of the lowest party-unity voting scores -- less than 84 percent -- of any House Democrat, according to washingtonpost.com's congressional database. The average House Democrat has voted with the majority on 92.5 percent of all votes.
"They're trying to create separation. Our guys did it in '95 and '96," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), a member of the GOP class of 1994.
At the time, freshman Republicans saw congressional popularity plummet during a budget fight that led to a series of federal government shutdowns. Fearful of being tied closely to then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), many freshmen also began voting no on the journal in a similar effort to distance themselves.
Half a dozen freshman Democrats took to the House floor one late-October morning to cast their lot with Republicans.
Their actions went unpunished by the Democratic leadership that day, as they have on many other occasions in recent weeks. The symbolic gesture -- casting nay votes on approving the House Journal, essentially the minutes of the previous day -- would have no bearing on the leadership's agenda.
While they overwhelmingly support that agenda, the bloc of freshmen has begun casting votes against such minor procedural motions in an effort, Democratic sources and Republican critics say, to demonstrate their independence from their leadership. The number of votes that the potentially vulnerable newcomers to Capitol Hill cast against House leaders is tallied and watched closely by interest groups and political foes.
Such is the political life of many of the 42 freshman House Democrats, a sizable number of them moderates and conservatives who must straddle the fence between supporting their party's interests and distancing themselves from a mostly liberal leadership as they gear up for their first reelection battle next fall.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other members of the party's leadership are happy to tolerate the independence on procedural matters. Less than three hours after opposing the late-October journal vote, the same six freshmen sided with Pelosi as Democrats tried, and failed, to override President Bush's veto of a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years, legislation that Pelosi has called her "crown jewel."
"I'm viewed as an independent. I'm viewed as a conservative Democrat," said Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.), the first freshman to regularly oppose his party's leadership on the journal vote.
Like several others, Altmire offered no explanation for voting against all but one of 18 roll calls on the routine measure, adding that he had no "pre-planned" rationale for the votes. "I'm certainly not going to win or lose my reelection based on my journal votes," he said.
But the first reelection campaign in his conservative-leaning western Pennsylvania district could be a tough one. Bush won there by a comfortable nine percentage points in 2004. Districts such as Altmire's fueled the Democratic takeover of the House last year. They are blue-collar in attitude and red-hued in politics, particularly on issues such as abortion and gun rights.
Dubbed the "majority makers" by Pelosi's leadership team, the freshmen have become a major front in the Democrats' battle to sustain and expand their majority next fall.
Stuart Rothenberg, an independent analyst and author of the Rothenberg Political Report, said Republican hopes for shrinking the Democratic majority begin with what he calls "snapback candidates," who rode into office under the last election cycle's optimal conditions for Democrats and now face their first reelection contests.
Protecting the 42 freshman Democrats, the largest partisan class since 73 Republicans took office in 1994, has been the top priority for key Democratic strategists such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). The freshmen get special treatment from leaders, including a weekly meeting with Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.). And they receive frequent advice on how to vote from Emanuel and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Seven of the rookies have more than $1 million in cash on hand, and according to Rothenberg, more than half are in safe positions to win reelection. In addition, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee holds a more than 11-to-1 cash advantage over its Republican counterpart, a potential financial backstop for endangered freshmen.
But the political environment has turned toxic in recent months as Democrats have been stymied in their effort to take Congress in their self-proclaimed new direction. Opinion polls show public approval ratings for Congress mired in the 20s, considerably lower than Bush's rating.
In recent months, Democrats in battleground districts have been criticized by Republicans, who have tried to paint them as close to the new House leadership.
"While these Democrats might claim to be independent voices for their districts, the differences between them and Nancy Pelosi are purely aesthetic," said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. This year, the GOP committee launched a Web site to track the percentage of votes that 28 of the freshmen cast with Pelosi, whom Republicans say will be a polarizing figure in conservative districts next fall.
That is why procedural votes are important to freshmen, according to Democratic aides. House Republicans this year turned to a procedure known as a "motion to recommit," offering what is typically a routine method of sending bills back to committee as politically charged amendments. With a wink and a nod from Emanuel and Hoyer, some endangered freshmen frequently vote with Republicans on tricky GOP motions to keep their votes from being used against them in 30-second campaign sound bites.
Some freshman Democrats have taken the idea of voting against their party leadership on procedural votes one step further, opposing mundane matters such as the journal vote.
Altmire has sided with the opposition in 17 of 18 journal roll calls this year. Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) has cast 15 votes with the GOP. In the spring, only a few freshmen voted against the journal, but one recent vote drew 13 freshmen in opposition, and in another, 11 voted nay. Now a half-dozen or more regularly oppose whenever a roll call is held.
Democratic leaders acknowledge that they have encouraged the freshmen to sometimes vote with Republicans on politically difficult issues, but deny that they have had any input on the Congressional Record votes.
"We've given them very simple advice: Make sure you vote your district," Van Hollen said.
As a result, Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), for example, has one of the lowest party-unity voting scores -- less than 84 percent -- of any House Democrat, according to washingtonpost.com's congressional database. The average House Democrat has voted with the majority on 92.5 percent of all votes.
"They're trying to create separation. Our guys did it in '95 and '96," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), a member of the GOP class of 1994.
At the time, freshman Republicans saw congressional popularity plummet during a budget fight that led to a series of federal government shutdowns. Fearful of being tied closely to then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), many freshmen also began voting no on the journal in a similar effort to distance themselves.
more...
pictures Dramatic Eye Makeup for
bfadlia
01-07 03:22 PM
Jesus didn't change any commandments. Read bible and comment. He said about the summary for the 10 commnandment. He said 1. love your God 2. Love your neighbour. It contains all commandments. Read the commandments. You will see it contains these 2 meanings only.
Jesu's birth, life and cruxification are done according to the prophesy in old textment. If you have time read it. Christians didn't changed old testment. But most of the jews not recognise him during the time. Those recognise him convert to christianity. They suffered because of their non belief. But details in the bible for the second coming of jesus and the nation of Israel to prepare for his coming, so the present day jews are supported by God. In the end they all belive the mesiah.
About trinity, we human cannot understand the complexity of God. We still cannot understand or expalin the nature misteries, how we can understand God in detail??. But God revealed some details to his people through prophet. Malachi is the last prophet. It is the last book in the old testment. After the mesiah was come to the world. God was revealed to human.
Thank you so much for the information although I think I never asked about the trinity or salvation or the return of the messiah (only said the yearning for that return should not be used to justify one people displacing another and taking their land).. I respect jesus.. all muslims do.. let god deal with us for not accepting jesus as his son and just please stop using him as a scarecrow and leave Mohamed alone too..
peace.
Jesu's birth, life and cruxification are done according to the prophesy in old textment. If you have time read it. Christians didn't changed old testment. But most of the jews not recognise him during the time. Those recognise him convert to christianity. They suffered because of their non belief. But details in the bible for the second coming of jesus and the nation of Israel to prepare for his coming, so the present day jews are supported by God. In the end they all belive the mesiah.
About trinity, we human cannot understand the complexity of God. We still cannot understand or expalin the nature misteries, how we can understand God in detail??. But God revealed some details to his people through prophet. Malachi is the last prophet. It is the last book in the old testment. After the mesiah was come to the world. God was revealed to human.
Thank you so much for the information although I think I never asked about the trinity or salvation or the return of the messiah (only said the yearning for that return should not be used to justify one people displacing another and taking their land).. I respect jesus.. all muslims do.. let god deal with us for not accepting jesus as his son and just please stop using him as a scarecrow and leave Mohamed alone too..
peace.
dresses wedding makeup for eyes
sumanitha
12-17 11:02 PM
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...
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...
more...
makeup How To Apply Eye Makeup For
mbawa2574
03-23 10:55 PM
it is not just america losing - the person who has bought the house would lose his downpayment / equity too -not to speak of the mighty credit score - am I right ??
depends on yr situation and your priorities and more important the place where you are planning to buy. is it in florida, mich, Ohio, california or nevada (I guess no - else you would not have asked this question). if you think of a house as investment and you dont want to take a loss - then wait. if you need the space desperately and you are o.k with the prospect of yr house depreciating for couple of years - then go ahead and buy. BTW there was another thread where this was discussed in detail
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17986
I agree he will loose his down payment or credit score in case of things going south on GC side but still he will be able to do whatever is best for his long term goals now and he will be better off in terms of equity when real estate market bounces back in 3-4 years.There are lucrative deals in the market and renting does not make any sense. There is always a risk factor and u can cover your risks accordingly. Anywaz What exactly ur going to do with Credit Score after u are kicked out from here ? So why not take risk now and play the game.
depends on yr situation and your priorities and more important the place where you are planning to buy. is it in florida, mich, Ohio, california or nevada (I guess no - else you would not have asked this question). if you think of a house as investment and you dont want to take a loss - then wait. if you need the space desperately and you are o.k with the prospect of yr house depreciating for couple of years - then go ahead and buy. BTW there was another thread where this was discussed in detail
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17986
I agree he will loose his down payment or credit score in case of things going south on GC side but still he will be able to do whatever is best for his long term goals now and he will be better off in terms of equity when real estate market bounces back in 3-4 years.There are lucrative deals in the market and renting does not make any sense. There is always a risk factor and u can cover your risks accordingly. Anywaz What exactly ur going to do with Credit Score after u are kicked out from here ? So why not take risk now and play the game.
girlfriend A makeup for a day at the
GC_Optimist
12-26 06:57 PM
There was news about CIR on CNN. and according to Senate Majority leader Reid . Democrats have been voted to
pass CIR . Kennedy was working on this and it would be discussed as a priority.
Democrats are hoping for support from President on this.
pass CIR . Kennedy was working on this and it would be discussed as a priority.
Democrats are hoping for support from President on this.
hairstyles Make Up For Ever founder and
knowDOL
07-15 12:40 PM
If you are that kind of person who was out of job and not got paid in bench, then go back to your country and don't go against law and get a bad name for all of us who are here legally on everyday for for last 7 -8 years and trying to get GC legally. There are many companies out there who want us in top positions. Just because of GC or EAD it is stalling. If you pay your attorny fee or H1B fee that is your status and do not attribute it to everyone. My company of 54 strength has 15-20 H1Bs and company runs on these individuals. Its been like that from 7 years. Companies hires people and concentrates on product because of the great billing rate H1B's get and because of the great work we do for clients, clients are ready to pay higher $ per hour. Give me your company name and we will make sure to destroy all these chota mota companies who make employees pay H1b fees and do not pay in bench. One fine day, it will anyway happen. In this country, no one can escape long not abiding law.
Let us be honest. A lot of us who came through body shops had to pay lawyer fee or had to take a cut in pay. Many of us had to sit in the bench for a long time with out pay. At the end of the day, not all of us are the best and the brightest but we are ready to work harder than the average Joe. With or without us this country will go forward. We are here to get a greencard and to become part of the melting pot. Please admit it my friends. I fully understands why many Americans are against us. We simply take their job. Then we insult them. Then we say, if we go back the American economy will go to hell. The companies are here for cheap labor. The congressmen who support them are the biggest receivers of their contribution. That is the reality. Let us not forget that. :D
Let us be honest. A lot of us who came through body shops had to pay lawyer fee or had to take a cut in pay. Many of us had to sit in the bench for a long time with out pay. At the end of the day, not all of us are the best and the brightest but we are ready to work harder than the average Joe. With or without us this country will go forward. We are here to get a greencard and to become part of the melting pot. Please admit it my friends. I fully understands why many Americans are against us. We simply take their job. Then we insult them. Then we say, if we go back the American economy will go to hell. The companies are here for cheap labor. The congressmen who support them are the biggest receivers of their contribution. That is the reality. Let us not forget that. :D
mariner5555
04-14 02:09 PM
It is not going down everywhere...I am in a location where people are buying houses like mad and the prices are actually better than last year.
And yet, some people in my location are thinking about nothing but resale. They are not able to see a home as anything other than an investment and I am referring to such people in my earlier post.
ofcourse it is not going down everywhere. but it is going down in majority of the places that were polled. you are right home is not (and won't be an investment for a long time). In the end if you are desperate for more space (or if you get a super offer and have permanent status) etc then buy but if you are a person who doesnot want to pay more for an item than it is worth ...then wait. (especially if you are on EAD or H1).
also some feel (And say to others) that they have to rush to buy since many say it is a best time to buy and prices will go high v.soon ..the answer to this is a big No. (prices won't go up any time soon ..instead it will fall some more. and in most locations there will always be plenty of houses for sale).
And yet, some people in my location are thinking about nothing but resale. They are not able to see a home as anything other than an investment and I am referring to such people in my earlier post.
ofcourse it is not going down everywhere. but it is going down in majority of the places that were polled. you are right home is not (and won't be an investment for a long time). In the end if you are desperate for more space (or if you get a super offer and have permanent status) etc then buy but if you are a person who doesnot want to pay more for an item than it is worth ...then wait. (especially if you are on EAD or H1).
also some feel (And say to others) that they have to rush to buy since many say it is a best time to buy and prices will go high v.soon ..the answer to this is a big No. (prices won't go up any time soon ..instead it will fall some more. and in most locations there will always be plenty of houses for sale).
wellwishergc
07-11 11:48 AM
Please ignore my previous posting! I saw in one of the earlier postings that you are approved. Congratulations and Best wishes! and welcome back to this forum; Please help us here whenever you can.
Thanks!
Is your GC approved now?
Thanks!
Is your GC approved now?
No comments:
Post a Comment