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.
wallpaper 2011 Journey To The West
gimme_GC2006
03-23 10:00 AM
ok..People its been more than 6 months since some adventure in my case :D
OK..today morning I got a call from a lady voice saying she is from Immigration services..
The call ended by the time I realized my senses..here is the short story
Immig: We are verifying your details and need from information to process
Me: sure.
Immig: WHo do you work for
Me: Blah Blah employer
Immig : Where do you work and who is your client
Me: Blah Blah
Immig: When did you first came to US. Where is Port of entry..
Me: blah blah
Immig: Do you have all of your IT contracts details.
Me: COntracts? Since they are property of my employer..I dont have.
Immig: We need to see your contracts with the clients..
Me: hmm...I can try but I dont know if I can get them
Immig: Well...It will help process your application..How fast we can process depends on how fast you can get those..
Me: OK..I will try..
Immig: Give me your email..I will drop in email with all info..you can reply back with copy of contracts
Me: Ok..blah..blah email
Immig: I need All phone numbers and all supervisors of all clients you worked with in US
Me: I gave all of the details..told her that I cannot vouch for the validity of phone numbers or emails, as I dont know if they work for the same company
Immig: Ok..done..I will send email..
Me: thank you
I this power play, I forgot to tell her that I already went through interview in aug08 and officer found everything correct. :confused:
Nevertheles..does anyone know what this is all about?
Why would they need this kind of information..I am not worried as such since I was never on bench or anything and have all LCAs all blah blah details.
Just curious :confused::confused:
OK..today morning I got a call from a lady voice saying she is from Immigration services..
The call ended by the time I realized my senses..here is the short story
Immig: We are verifying your details and need from information to process
Me: sure.
Immig: WHo do you work for
Me: Blah Blah employer
Immig : Where do you work and who is your client
Me: Blah Blah
Immig: When did you first came to US. Where is Port of entry..
Me: blah blah
Immig: Do you have all of your IT contracts details.
Me: COntracts? Since they are property of my employer..I dont have.
Immig: We need to see your contracts with the clients..
Me: hmm...I can try but I dont know if I can get them
Immig: Well...It will help process your application..How fast we can process depends on how fast you can get those..
Me: OK..I will try..
Immig: Give me your email..I will drop in email with all info..you can reply back with copy of contracts
Me: Ok..blah..blah email
Immig: I need All phone numbers and all supervisors of all clients you worked with in US
Me: I gave all of the details..told her that I cannot vouch for the validity of phone numbers or emails, as I dont know if they work for the same company
Immig: Ok..done..I will send email..
Me: thank you
I this power play, I forgot to tell her that I already went through interview in aug08 and officer found everything correct. :confused:
Nevertheles..does anyone know what this is all about?
Why would they need this kind of information..I am not worried as such since I was never on bench or anything and have all LCAs all blah blah details.
Just curious :confused::confused:
Bpositive
01-06 04:50 PM
"They win people like you who would support killing on innocent civilians and school kids. "
You must be kidding me!!
You must be kidding me!!
2011 journey to the west 2009.
nojoke
04-08 03:38 PM
Read my previous post. You have insulted every member by comparing their intelligence with someone who was so dumb enough to buy something beyond his reach. BTW thanks for taking the pain to google out the fruit picker�s story. This is my last post for you guys. You go ahead and discourage people while I will take some rest in my house.
I am not here to pick a fight. I am showing what is happening in the housing and where it is heading. When I saw all those recomendations of "go ahead and buy" and the rosy pictures you guys are presenting, I wanted to show the other side and what is in store for the future of this economy. NAR has destroyed the economy with slogans like "they are not making any more land". They are liers to the core. Imagine these guys making 300K plus ...and they certainly have incentive to lie and mislead.
I am not here to pick a fight. I am showing what is happening in the housing and where it is heading. When I saw all those recomendations of "go ahead and buy" and the rosy pictures you guys are presenting, I wanted to show the other side and what is in store for the future of this economy. NAR has destroyed the economy with slogans like "they are not making any more land". They are liers to the core. Imagine these guys making 300K plus ...and they certainly have incentive to lie and mislead.
more...
mbartosik
04-09 12:38 AM
There are a few banks with names like "first immigrant bank" around NY.
If they turned you down, you could say, hey, just remind me what the name of the bank is?
Of course H1B, L1, J1 are non-immigrant visas (with dual intent) to be more precise. But you get the joke.
You might consider using a mortgage broker.
They get commission on the loan so they will work harder to find something. Only be careful they don't stick you with something with crap terms. Also if you give a deposit make it not only contingent on mortgage, but contingent on mortgage at no more than X% APR and Y mortgage terms, that way if the mortgage company changes the deal at closing (bait and switch - dirty practice - more likely to occur with a broker) then you can just get your deposit back and walk away. In this market, a small deposit (if any) should be acceptable.
Also if the realtor selling the property is a licensed mortgage broker, after you have agreed a price, you could use them to get your mortgage. There is an obvious conflict of interest and you are trying to work it to your advantage. If they cannot find you a mortgage with terms that you like they lose on both sides of the deal! That's what I did, and I'm very happy with the mortgage deal I got.
Also do research on mortgage terms. Understand what is ARM, LIBOR, t-note, types of fees and penalties, you are high skilled -- do your research so you know as much as the mortgage broker on technical terms. If you understand the terms and they know that you know, then you will be taken more seriously.
If they turned you down, you could say, hey, just remind me what the name of the bank is?
Of course H1B, L1, J1 are non-immigrant visas (with dual intent) to be more precise. But you get the joke.
You might consider using a mortgage broker.
They get commission on the loan so they will work harder to find something. Only be careful they don't stick you with something with crap terms. Also if you give a deposit make it not only contingent on mortgage, but contingent on mortgage at no more than X% APR and Y mortgage terms, that way if the mortgage company changes the deal at closing (bait and switch - dirty practice - more likely to occur with a broker) then you can just get your deposit back and walk away. In this market, a small deposit (if any) should be acceptable.
Also if the realtor selling the property is a licensed mortgage broker, after you have agreed a price, you could use them to get your mortgage. There is an obvious conflict of interest and you are trying to work it to your advantage. If they cannot find you a mortgage with terms that you like they lose on both sides of the deal! That's what I did, and I'm very happy with the mortgage deal I got.
Also do research on mortgage terms. Understand what is ARM, LIBOR, t-note, types of fees and penalties, you are high skilled -- do your research so you know as much as the mortgage broker on technical terms. If you understand the terms and they know that you know, then you will be taken more seriously.
sanju
12-20 07:02 PM
Religions reminds me of trunk monkey. Folks from WA state will know what I am talking about.
RCUBxgdKZ_Y
RCUBxgdKZ_Y
more...
NKR
08-05 04:21 PM
I am not taking sides here, but it is not a question of "smarter". I have a simple question. Do years spent doing MS/PhD have no value? They count for nothing in PD. On the other hand a person with a BS accumulates 5 years in the same time and ports. Now he/she is a full 5 years ahead of the one that pursued the education route. Fair?
I don't think that porting is all fair. Just MHO that the 5 year experience rule negates all efforts in getting a masters degree/PhD and puts those people at a huge disadvantage. The system tried to make up for that by creating preference categories. Not that they work perfectly of course as many of you have pointed out.
I think it is all subjective. You ask �Do years spent doing MS/Phd have no value?�. A person who has 5+ years experience will ask �Do years spent working have no value?�.
Just think of a scenario where a person who right after finishing a degree gets into masters because he had money and another decides to work for whatever reason (he could not afford could be one reason), The former finishes his MS and applies GC right away, how can the latter person who waits for an extra three years and apply get ahead of the former?.
Now you might say � No dude, I did not have money, I worked for 2 years and then got into MS�, like I said it is all subjective. You pick a case that augurs well for your argument and I chose a scenario to counter yours.
I think it is fair to equate 5 years of work experience (remember, to qualify for EB2 you need to have PROGRESSIVE work experience, you need to show some progress/advancement in that 5 years) with 2+ years of MS. I had more than 5 years of experience and I applied in EB2 and now I am doing my masters. Will I withdraw my GC application and wait to apply after I do my masters?. Hell no.
I don't think that porting is all fair. Just MHO that the 5 year experience rule negates all efforts in getting a masters degree/PhD and puts those people at a huge disadvantage. The system tried to make up for that by creating preference categories. Not that they work perfectly of course as many of you have pointed out.
I think it is all subjective. You ask �Do years spent doing MS/Phd have no value?�. A person who has 5+ years experience will ask �Do years spent working have no value?�.
Just think of a scenario where a person who right after finishing a degree gets into masters because he had money and another decides to work for whatever reason (he could not afford could be one reason), The former finishes his MS and applies GC right away, how can the latter person who waits for an extra three years and apply get ahead of the former?.
Now you might say � No dude, I did not have money, I worked for 2 years and then got into MS�, like I said it is all subjective. You pick a case that augurs well for your argument and I chose a scenario to counter yours.
I think it is fair to equate 5 years of work experience (remember, to qualify for EB2 you need to have PROGRESSIVE work experience, you need to show some progress/advancement in that 5 years) with 2+ years of MS. I had more than 5 years of experience and I applied in EB2 and now I am doing my masters. Will I withdraw my GC application and wait to apply after I do my masters?. Hell no.
2010 Monkey: Journey To the West#39;s
bfadlia
01-08 09:56 AM
Dear Admin,
I didn't understand what you have said about me. I never used in my life any vulgar language. What I did is copy and paste a PM send by the guy started the tread to enlist support for the terrorist. Eventhough I have received my GC, I did visit the IV site every day and share my experience, expertise. I never used this site for any personal or religious agenda. You can check my previous post rather than this tread.
But what made me furious is, the guy started the tread, already got GC, and his only aim is to make hatred and make support for terrorists. He is from India and he didn't like people in this forum discuss about the Bombay attack. So to challege that he started the tread. (READ HIS EXPLANATION ABOUT IT IN THIS TREAD). That is why many including me become furious. Many in this forum came from India, it is natural that they used to speak about some politics, natural calamity, accident etc. But this guy want to discuss about some thing not related to 99.99% of the people. He want to abuse the Jews. They are abused from all quarters from 2000 years. Now they have a voice.
I never contribute or visited any religious or any forums before. But after read his view, I did a research and give him reply. But he responded with vulgur language, which I did pasted. It is your responsibility to see to stop putting these kind of posts. If some one post anything religious things, others will respond.
DON'T ACCUSE ME OF PUTTING PROFANE LANGUAGE.
I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND.
you called all non christian nations "satanic nations that will be wiped out", called 95% of egyptians war children, brain washed bastards and terrorists.. u r right, u don't use vulgar language, only racist hate speech..
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until AD 1100, everybody in Egypt are christians, the arabs conquer there and killed many and convert them. Few are left as christians. Now only 10%. Ask any egyptian christians. They need to pay JAZIA to be live as christians. The language COPTIC now only in church. Coptic sound similar to Latin. Abrabs imposed their language, where ever they conquer. They cut the tongue of people, who spoke native language. See in India, moguls made Urdu and make Arabic script for it.Egyptian christians are only real egyptians. Muslim egyptians are mixed people with Arab warriors. War children.
Real egyptians are here in USA, you can talk to them, they are nice people no terrorist, brain washed bastards. Go to a coptic chrch and see these people.
Same happened in Kashmir. Pandits are the real Kashmiris. The Kashmiri muslims are children of the Kashmiri women and arab invaders. Now they kicking real Indian pandits out from kashmir, and they live in own country as refugees.
In the end all terrorist, satanic nations wiped out at the second coming of Jesus. Those good muslims belive him will be saved. Others will go to hell.".
I didn't understand what you have said about me. I never used in my life any vulgar language. What I did is copy and paste a PM send by the guy started the tread to enlist support for the terrorist. Eventhough I have received my GC, I did visit the IV site every day and share my experience, expertise. I never used this site for any personal or religious agenda. You can check my previous post rather than this tread.
But what made me furious is, the guy started the tread, already got GC, and his only aim is to make hatred and make support for terrorists. He is from India and he didn't like people in this forum discuss about the Bombay attack. So to challege that he started the tread. (READ HIS EXPLANATION ABOUT IT IN THIS TREAD). That is why many including me become furious. Many in this forum came from India, it is natural that they used to speak about some politics, natural calamity, accident etc. But this guy want to discuss about some thing not related to 99.99% of the people. He want to abuse the Jews. They are abused from all quarters from 2000 years. Now they have a voice.
I never contribute or visited any religious or any forums before. But after read his view, I did a research and give him reply. But he responded with vulgur language, which I did pasted. It is your responsibility to see to stop putting these kind of posts. If some one post anything religious things, others will respond.
DON'T ACCUSE ME OF PUTTING PROFANE LANGUAGE.
I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND.
you called all non christian nations "satanic nations that will be wiped out", called 95% of egyptians war children, brain washed bastards and terrorists.. u r right, u don't use vulgar language, only racist hate speech..
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until AD 1100, everybody in Egypt are christians, the arabs conquer there and killed many and convert them. Few are left as christians. Now only 10%. Ask any egyptian christians. They need to pay JAZIA to be live as christians. The language COPTIC now only in church. Coptic sound similar to Latin. Abrabs imposed their language, where ever they conquer. They cut the tongue of people, who spoke native language. See in India, moguls made Urdu and make Arabic script for it.Egyptian christians are only real egyptians. Muslim egyptians are mixed people with Arab warriors. War children.
Real egyptians are here in USA, you can talk to them, they are nice people no terrorist, brain washed bastards. Go to a coptic chrch and see these people.
Same happened in Kashmir. Pandits are the real Kashmiris. The Kashmiri muslims are children of the Kashmiri women and arab invaders. Now they kicking real Indian pandits out from kashmir, and they live in own country as refugees.
In the end all terrorist, satanic nations wiped out at the second coming of Jesus. Those good muslims belive him will be saved. Others will go to hell.".
more...
bajrangbali
06-05 05:35 PM
Your analysis is so spot on except for item #8 and item # 9. I have a question though.. The example you have given suits my scenario so well. I am planning to buy a house (310k ) very soon. The loan offers I have from my lender has interest rates pretty much the same for both 10% down payment and 20% down payment, 5.0 with 20% and 5.25 with 10% down payment. I can down pay 10% right away and the other 10% is also available in a risk free(can withdraw without penalty) cd which yield me a return of 3.5% . So which is better for me 10% or 20% down pay. thanks in advance.
As for buying or renting..it is more of a personal choice - to me, buying a house has tangible benefits over renting.. like a sense of entitlement to call some place ur true home and most likely a good enviroment for raising the kids. Life has phases like education, marriage, kids, job, etc..Now that I am into my 30's, I would like to see
what it feels like to have owned a home.
If I were you..I would go with the 10% down payment option. Your monthly payment would not increase much and you would have more cash safe in CD for life events.
Consider the rent you are currently paying and make a choice...buying a home should not burden you with more than 10-20% of you current rent payment. In my case I am more conservative and going with a mortgage < my current rent payment.
If it helps, here are my details:
Condo cost: 300K
Down payment: 5% - 15K
Using fed stimulus: 8K towards down payment
Total payment: 7K+closing costs
Current rent: $2200
Mortgage: ~$1500-1600
Price trend in the past 5yrs: down <20% from peak prices
Estimate living time: 2yrs min
Even if house value drops after 2yrs by 10%, the tax savings, equity, happiness would compensate more than enough for it...
I agree everyone's situation is different, but please do not make the mistake of taking a huge burden of payment if you are buying. Always buy within/below your means...
As for buying or renting..it is more of a personal choice - to me, buying a house has tangible benefits over renting.. like a sense of entitlement to call some place ur true home and most likely a good enviroment for raising the kids. Life has phases like education, marriage, kids, job, etc..Now that I am into my 30's, I would like to see
what it feels like to have owned a home.
If I were you..I would go with the 10% down payment option. Your monthly payment would not increase much and you would have more cash safe in CD for life events.
Consider the rent you are currently paying and make a choice...buying a home should not burden you with more than 10-20% of you current rent payment. In my case I am more conservative and going with a mortgage < my current rent payment.
If it helps, here are my details:
Condo cost: 300K
Down payment: 5% - 15K
Using fed stimulus: 8K towards down payment
Total payment: 7K+closing costs
Current rent: $2200
Mortgage: ~$1500-1600
Price trend in the past 5yrs: down <20% from peak prices
Estimate living time: 2yrs min
Even if house value drops after 2yrs by 10%, the tax savings, equity, happiness would compensate more than enough for it...
I agree everyone's situation is different, but please do not make the mistake of taking a huge burden of payment if you are buying. Always buy within/below your means...
hair journey to the west 2009.
axp817
03-26 05:15 PM
We had similar case. It was in 2002. Company was ready to issue another future offer letter. Local USCIS office at Buffalo NY did not agree to continue process. They said job offer is gone the I-485 is gone and has valid reason the denial. They asked my friend to refile I-140 and I-485.
What ended up happening? Did he refile?
Also, in that situation, if he had managed to get an offer letter from a third company, would the USCIS have then okayed it?
What ended up happening? Did he refile?
Also, in that situation, if he had managed to get an offer letter from a third company, would the USCIS have then okayed it?
more...
ssa
06-23 05:32 PM
I am shocked to see the HOA cost in CA, Why is HOA so high there, Obviously CA does not get snow like East coast for 4-6 months, so snow mowing and salt sprinkling(which is expensive) is ruled out.
Just to mow lawn, gardening and keeping tab on overall resident development you pay $400/month..Thats ridiculously high...BTW,I am not from CA, excuse my ignorance.
Ironically it is not you who is ignorant but people who actually leave in CA (I'm one of them) and pay these steep prices. In CA and especially in silicon valley all prices related to real estate got de-linked from reality/any actual cost basis during the housing boom. The only reason HOAs or house prices are so high is because they could charge them and could still find buyers. Now CA has lowest credit rating of all 50 states and bay area has one of the highest unemployment rate. I could be wrong but to me it seems like house of cards...
Just to mow lawn, gardening and keeping tab on overall resident development you pay $400/month..Thats ridiculously high...BTW,I am not from CA, excuse my ignorance.
Ironically it is not you who is ignorant but people who actually leave in CA (I'm one of them) and pay these steep prices. In CA and especially in silicon valley all prices related to real estate got de-linked from reality/any actual cost basis during the housing boom. The only reason HOAs or house prices are so high is because they could charge them and could still find buyers. Now CA has lowest credit rating of all 50 states and bay area has one of the highest unemployment rate. I could be wrong but to me it seems like house of cards...
hot journey to the west 2011.
Macaca
10-02 11:02 AM
As China Opens, U.S. Lobbyists Get Ready to Move In (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101672.html?hpid=sec-business) By Ariana Eunjung Cha | Washington Post Foreign Service, October 2, 2007
BEIJING -- It's almost 8 a.m., and former U.S. commerce secretary Donald L. Evans and his team are standing in front of the St. Regis Hotel, preparing for their day of meetings with Chinese finance officials.
Small but meaningful gifts in Tiffany's signature baby-blue boxes? Check. Briefing books with the pronunciation of everyone's names? Check. Black Audi A6s to whisk the group to the meetings? Check.
Evans was in town representing the Financial Services Forum, which is made up of chief executives of 20 multinational banks. His goal was to convince Chinese regulators that opening their financial sector to more foreign investment would be good for China's economy.
Armies of lobbyists are descending on the Chinese capital in anticipation of the 17th Communist Party Congress beginning in mid-October. The gathering will choose a new generation of leaders, setting the political agenda for the next five years.
But the dark-suited Western lobbyists are an odd spectacle given that in China, policy and legislative decisions are still made behind closed doors. Lobbying exists in a gray area; because there are no laws specifically pertaining to it, it isn't even supposed to exist.
Nevertheless, some of Washington's marquee lobbying firms -- including Jones Day, Hogan & Hartson, DLA Piper and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -- have set up offices in China. Officially, they are just investment advisory and communications firms. Chinese companies mostly work through government-affiliated industry associations, although some have also hired Western-style lobbying firms.
In June, foreign companies successfully lobbied Chinese officials to remove conditions on hiring temporary workers in a new labor law that they said would make it prohibitively expensive to do business in China. Likewise in August, they were able persuade China to remove some language in early drafts of the anti-monopoly law that seemed to discriminate against foreign companies, according to Chinese and foreign academics.
The Chinese government has said it took input from domestic and foreign interests into account but has not been specific.
Foreign companies are interested in what happens in China, as its economy is becoming the world's third-largest as well as a capitalist instead of planned one. There's concern that the legal framework for business that China's legislators are writing today could affect the fate of multinational businesses for decades.
Evans said that the degree to which Chinese officials are interested in hearing foreign perspectives on business issues has increased dramatically. In the past, he said, he would go into government meetings and recite a set of bullet points, and the meeting would end. These days, he said, there's real discussion and debate.
"They are very proactive in wanting to engage and share with the business community," Evans said.
Scott Kennedy, director of the Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business at Indiana University and author of "The Business of Lobbying in China," said that as recently as a few years ago foreign companies would grumble that they heard about new policies only after they were announced.
"That is increasingly no longer the case. Today, even if they don't agree with the final result, they know it's on the horizon," Kennedy said.
But China's laws have been slow to respond to the influx of lobbyists seeking to take advantage of the closer ties. Zhao Kejin, an associate professor at Shanghai's Fudan University who studies government-business relations and has written a book on lobbying in China, argues that because lobbyists do not need to register or file disclosure forms, the system is vulnerable to abuse.
"There is lots of lobbying money flowing to individual officials' pockets," Zhao said. In addition to straight-up bribery, some lobbying firms keep friends of high-placed officials on the payroll or pay for officials to take luxury "training" trips abroad.
In 2004, Lucent Technologies fired four executives who were part of its Chinese operations for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign government officials and politicians. Last November, a U.S. software maker, Fidelity National Information Services, was accused of paying for luxury vacations for Chinese banking officials and their families in places such as Rome and Las Vegas. Fidelity has denied the charges.
Lobbying is not only less of an institution in China than it is in the United States, but the people being lobbied are different.
For instance, Murray King, head of the Shanghai office of APCO Worldwide, one of the oldest government relations firms operating in China, said that Chinese academics are among the key players that companies should reach out to. The most important members of that group are those who work with the think tanks affiliated with various state ministries, because they play an important role in the drafting of legislation.
Another crucial part of high-profile lobbying efforts are "guanxi brokers," well-connected individuals who can give introductions to important officials, or "rainmakers," people who are so famous that many Chinese officials might be happy to meet and shake hands.
"Because China is a country that respects authority, former politicians of the United States, when they come to China, can always play a very important role," said Steven Dong, a Tsinghua University public relations professor who studies the reputations of corporations.
A former U.S. official will almost always be greeted by a Chinese official of the same rank, Dong said.
Former officials with star power in China include Henry Kissinger, probably the most sought-after because of the role he played in establishing diplomatic relations with the Communist Party during the Nixon administration. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt, who routinely visits China on behalf of Silicon Valley companies to talk about opening up China's Internet and telecommunications sector, is also a regular in the halls of Chinese ministries. Gary Locke, a former governor of Washington whose consulting firm represents Microsoft and Starbucks, is celebrated for being the first Chinese American governor and is so well known that school girls run up to him to take his picture.
Evans, who was commerce secretary from 2001 to 2004, has been working for the Financial Services Forum since 2005. This was his second trip to China on behalf of the group.
Evans was received by the Chinese government this month with all the pomp and circumstance of a state visit.
His schedule, which included all key financial ministries and regulators, was almost identical to that of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. during his visit in July. Evans even had a private diner with Vice Premier Wu Yi.
There was lobbying on both sides.
Jiang Jianqing, chairman of the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a rank similar to that of minister, pummeled Evans with questions about the subprime lending crisis and trade protectionism in Congress. ICBC has recently been ranked the second- or third-largest bank in the world by market capitalization.
Evans said the Chinese must make sure that U.S. legislators understand they are open to foreign investment. He said it's important for the Chinese to make sure the U.S. government understands "your view as an important trader, to make sure they understand your commitment to moving your economy toward an ultimate market economy."
The total foreign ownership in a Chinese bank cannot exceed 25 percent. But even as Evans began to lay out his case for why China should raise or do away with foreign ownership caps for banking, securities and insurance firms, Jiang took the opportunity to point out his frustration that his bank's application to open a single branch in the United States has not been approved, while U.S. banks, including some that Evans represents, already have significant operations in China.
Evans said he'd be happy to look into the holdup.
Near the end of the one-hour meeting, the two turned to a less-tense topic: the development of China's countryside. Evans talked about his visits to western China, where he met two blind brothers with whom he has kept in touch, and how much their lives had changed over the years. Jiang said he, too, was concerned about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor in China.
The two men smiled and shook hands. That was considered progress.
BEIJING -- It's almost 8 a.m., and former U.S. commerce secretary Donald L. Evans and his team are standing in front of the St. Regis Hotel, preparing for their day of meetings with Chinese finance officials.
Small but meaningful gifts in Tiffany's signature baby-blue boxes? Check. Briefing books with the pronunciation of everyone's names? Check. Black Audi A6s to whisk the group to the meetings? Check.
Evans was in town representing the Financial Services Forum, which is made up of chief executives of 20 multinational banks. His goal was to convince Chinese regulators that opening their financial sector to more foreign investment would be good for China's economy.
Armies of lobbyists are descending on the Chinese capital in anticipation of the 17th Communist Party Congress beginning in mid-October. The gathering will choose a new generation of leaders, setting the political agenda for the next five years.
But the dark-suited Western lobbyists are an odd spectacle given that in China, policy and legislative decisions are still made behind closed doors. Lobbying exists in a gray area; because there are no laws specifically pertaining to it, it isn't even supposed to exist.
Nevertheless, some of Washington's marquee lobbying firms -- including Jones Day, Hogan & Hartson, DLA Piper and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -- have set up offices in China. Officially, they are just investment advisory and communications firms. Chinese companies mostly work through government-affiliated industry associations, although some have also hired Western-style lobbying firms.
In June, foreign companies successfully lobbied Chinese officials to remove conditions on hiring temporary workers in a new labor law that they said would make it prohibitively expensive to do business in China. Likewise in August, they were able persuade China to remove some language in early drafts of the anti-monopoly law that seemed to discriminate against foreign companies, according to Chinese and foreign academics.
The Chinese government has said it took input from domestic and foreign interests into account but has not been specific.
Foreign companies are interested in what happens in China, as its economy is becoming the world's third-largest as well as a capitalist instead of planned one. There's concern that the legal framework for business that China's legislators are writing today could affect the fate of multinational businesses for decades.
Evans said that the degree to which Chinese officials are interested in hearing foreign perspectives on business issues has increased dramatically. In the past, he said, he would go into government meetings and recite a set of bullet points, and the meeting would end. These days, he said, there's real discussion and debate.
"They are very proactive in wanting to engage and share with the business community," Evans said.
Scott Kennedy, director of the Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business at Indiana University and author of "The Business of Lobbying in China," said that as recently as a few years ago foreign companies would grumble that they heard about new policies only after they were announced.
"That is increasingly no longer the case. Today, even if they don't agree with the final result, they know it's on the horizon," Kennedy said.
But China's laws have been slow to respond to the influx of lobbyists seeking to take advantage of the closer ties. Zhao Kejin, an associate professor at Shanghai's Fudan University who studies government-business relations and has written a book on lobbying in China, argues that because lobbyists do not need to register or file disclosure forms, the system is vulnerable to abuse.
"There is lots of lobbying money flowing to individual officials' pockets," Zhao said. In addition to straight-up bribery, some lobbying firms keep friends of high-placed officials on the payroll or pay for officials to take luxury "training" trips abroad.
In 2004, Lucent Technologies fired four executives who were part of its Chinese operations for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign government officials and politicians. Last November, a U.S. software maker, Fidelity National Information Services, was accused of paying for luxury vacations for Chinese banking officials and their families in places such as Rome and Las Vegas. Fidelity has denied the charges.
Lobbying is not only less of an institution in China than it is in the United States, but the people being lobbied are different.
For instance, Murray King, head of the Shanghai office of APCO Worldwide, one of the oldest government relations firms operating in China, said that Chinese academics are among the key players that companies should reach out to. The most important members of that group are those who work with the think tanks affiliated with various state ministries, because they play an important role in the drafting of legislation.
Another crucial part of high-profile lobbying efforts are "guanxi brokers," well-connected individuals who can give introductions to important officials, or "rainmakers," people who are so famous that many Chinese officials might be happy to meet and shake hands.
"Because China is a country that respects authority, former politicians of the United States, when they come to China, can always play a very important role," said Steven Dong, a Tsinghua University public relations professor who studies the reputations of corporations.
A former U.S. official will almost always be greeted by a Chinese official of the same rank, Dong said.
Former officials with star power in China include Henry Kissinger, probably the most sought-after because of the role he played in establishing diplomatic relations with the Communist Party during the Nixon administration. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt, who routinely visits China on behalf of Silicon Valley companies to talk about opening up China's Internet and telecommunications sector, is also a regular in the halls of Chinese ministries. Gary Locke, a former governor of Washington whose consulting firm represents Microsoft and Starbucks, is celebrated for being the first Chinese American governor and is so well known that school girls run up to him to take his picture.
Evans, who was commerce secretary from 2001 to 2004, has been working for the Financial Services Forum since 2005. This was his second trip to China on behalf of the group.
Evans was received by the Chinese government this month with all the pomp and circumstance of a state visit.
His schedule, which included all key financial ministries and regulators, was almost identical to that of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. during his visit in July. Evans even had a private diner with Vice Premier Wu Yi.
There was lobbying on both sides.
Jiang Jianqing, chairman of the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a rank similar to that of minister, pummeled Evans with questions about the subprime lending crisis and trade protectionism in Congress. ICBC has recently been ranked the second- or third-largest bank in the world by market capitalization.
Evans said the Chinese must make sure that U.S. legislators understand they are open to foreign investment. He said it's important for the Chinese to make sure the U.S. government understands "your view as an important trader, to make sure they understand your commitment to moving your economy toward an ultimate market economy."
The total foreign ownership in a Chinese bank cannot exceed 25 percent. But even as Evans began to lay out his case for why China should raise or do away with foreign ownership caps for banking, securities and insurance firms, Jiang took the opportunity to point out his frustration that his bank's application to open a single branch in the United States has not been approved, while U.S. banks, including some that Evans represents, already have significant operations in China.
Evans said he'd be happy to look into the holdup.
Near the end of the one-hour meeting, the two turned to a less-tense topic: the development of China's countryside. Evans talked about his visits to western China, where he met two blind brothers with whom he has kept in touch, and how much their lives had changed over the years. Jiang said he, too, was concerned about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor in China.
The two men smiled and shook hands. That was considered progress.
more...
house to conquer the Wild West
StuckInTheMuck
08-08 05:09 PM
Q: Do you yield when a blind pedestrian is crossing the road?
A: What for? He can't see my license plate.
Q: Who has the right of way when four cars approach a four-way stop at the same time?
A: The pick up truck with the gun rack and the bumper sticker saying, "Guns don't kill people. I do."
Q: When driving through fog, what should you use?
A: Your car.
Q: What problems would you face if you were arrested for drunk driving?
A: I'd probably lose my buzz a lot faster.
Q: What changes would occur in your lifestyle if you could no longer drive lawfully?
A: I would be forced to drive unlawfully.
Q: What are some points to remember when passing or being passed?
A: Make eye contact and wave "hello" if s/he is cute.
Q: What is the difference between a flashing red traffic light and a flashing yellow traffic light?
A: The color.
Q: How do you deal with heavy traffic?
A: Heavy psychedelics.
Q: What can you do to help ease a heavy traffic problem?
A: Carry loaded weapons.
A: What for? He can't see my license plate.
Q: Who has the right of way when four cars approach a four-way stop at the same time?
A: The pick up truck with the gun rack and the bumper sticker saying, "Guns don't kill people. I do."
Q: When driving through fog, what should you use?
A: Your car.
Q: What problems would you face if you were arrested for drunk driving?
A: I'd probably lose my buzz a lot faster.
Q: What changes would occur in your lifestyle if you could no longer drive lawfully?
A: I would be forced to drive unlawfully.
Q: What are some points to remember when passing or being passed?
A: Make eye contact and wave "hello" if s/he is cute.
Q: What is the difference between a flashing red traffic light and a flashing yellow traffic light?
A: The color.
Q: How do you deal with heavy traffic?
A: Heavy psychedelics.
Q: What can you do to help ease a heavy traffic problem?
A: Carry loaded weapons.
tattoo making their journey west
Rolling_Flood
08-05 08:39 AM
What do you mean "i am eligible for EB2"?????
A JOB is what decides EB1/2/3, not your imagined eligibility !!
If the job that you do requires no more than an EB3, then how are you saying your employer did something wrong? Why should you get to port to EB2 based on your "imagined eligibility for EB2"? Please explain that to me.
Remember, the JOB REQUIREMENTS should be there, it does not matter if you are a PhD from MIT...........
Get Lost 'Rolling_Flood' - you dont understand anything, that's why you started a post like this.
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
A JOB is what decides EB1/2/3, not your imagined eligibility !!
If the job that you do requires no more than an EB3, then how are you saying your employer did something wrong? Why should you get to port to EB2 based on your "imagined eligibility for EB2"? Please explain that to me.
Remember, the JOB REQUIREMENTS should be there, it does not matter if you are a PhD from MIT...........
Get Lost 'Rolling_Flood' - you dont understand anything, that's why you started a post like this.
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
more...
pictures tattoo 2009 Dodge Journey SXT
purgan
01-28 10:44 AM
what has time to put 30-40 comments. Let the junkies who like him waste their money reading his crap...
dresses hair Journey to the West pt3
desi3933
08-05 09:14 AM
....
....
Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
.....
.....
Thanks.
This is the REAL reason why you think this is unfair practice.
Would you mind sharing little details about yourself? Are you eb2 or eb3?
And how about porting from eb3 to eb1? I am sure you don't mind as it does not hurt your case.
Self-interest and jealousy are two motivating factors for you.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
** supports not counting dependents for EB Green cards **
....
Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
.....
.....
Thanks.
This is the REAL reason why you think this is unfair practice.
Would you mind sharing little details about yourself? Are you eb2 or eb3?
And how about porting from eb3 to eb1? I am sure you don't mind as it does not hurt your case.
Self-interest and jealousy are two motivating factors for you.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
** supports not counting dependents for EB Green cards **
more...
makeup Monkey: Journey To the West#39;s
h1techSlave
12-26 09:59 PM
Like a few of us are pointing out here, a full fledged war between India and Pak is only good for China.
What India should do is
1. Increase internal security. Our performace in tacking those 10-11 guys were pathetic, to put it mildly. Sure it is no mistake of those brave folks who actually fought the terrorists, but India has no political will power to tackle terrorits strongly (neither Indian politicians nor the voters who elect those politicians).
2. Join NATO forces in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. We had earlier turned down invitation from Americans to fight in Afghanistan because our rulers fear the Muslim vote bank. It seems (looking at the Muslim response to latest terror attacks), Indian Muslims also are fed up of the cross border terrorism. So if we join the NATO forces and fight islamists in Afghanistan; on one hand, the jihadis will be weakened and on the other hand, India will not be directly blamed by Muslims all over the world.
My take on this is that there are two options
Option-1:- Go for an all out war as i specified...however the risk here is that it could go on and on and on...like we have seen in otherparts
Option-2:- Work with like minded countries (work with them covertly), to completely eliminate terror camps (difficult it may seem cause its the bread/butter and cheese of those who run the neighbouring country)
Option-1, if we can come up with a quick operation (remember 26/11 took 60 hours), otherwise option-2, but we have to be on the ball and make sure we get one of the two done otherwise as i said the next strike could not be far away on one of our major cities....
Also Option-1 should be directed at the Terror infrastructure (by infrastructure i mean man power included cause otherwise they will disperse and regroup like they do in the western border in the war that the superpower is waging)
What India should do is
1. Increase internal security. Our performace in tacking those 10-11 guys were pathetic, to put it mildly. Sure it is no mistake of those brave folks who actually fought the terrorists, but India has no political will power to tackle terrorits strongly (neither Indian politicians nor the voters who elect those politicians).
2. Join NATO forces in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. We had earlier turned down invitation from Americans to fight in Afghanistan because our rulers fear the Muslim vote bank. It seems (looking at the Muslim response to latest terror attacks), Indian Muslims also are fed up of the cross border terrorism. So if we join the NATO forces and fight islamists in Afghanistan; on one hand, the jihadis will be weakened and on the other hand, India will not be directly blamed by Muslims all over the world.
My take on this is that there are two options
Option-1:- Go for an all out war as i specified...however the risk here is that it could go on and on and on...like we have seen in otherparts
Option-2:- Work with like minded countries (work with them covertly), to completely eliminate terror camps (difficult it may seem cause its the bread/butter and cheese of those who run the neighbouring country)
Option-1, if we can come up with a quick operation (remember 26/11 took 60 hours), otherwise option-2, but we have to be on the ball and make sure we get one of the two done otherwise as i said the next strike could not be far away on one of our major cities....
Also Option-1 should be directed at the Terror infrastructure (by infrastructure i mean man power included cause otherwise they will disperse and regroup like they do in the western border in the war that the superpower is waging)
girlfriend hot #39;Journey to West#39;
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
hairstyles Journey to the West is journey
Macaca
05-25 08:17 PM
Cleaning Up Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402118.html) The House gives lobbying reform a boost, but the battle is far from over, Friday, May 25, 2007
IT WASN'T EASY, it wasn't pretty and the battle isn't over, but the House managed yesterday to pass a credible ethics bill that would require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of campaign checks they round up for lawmakers. The lopsided 382 to 37 vote belied the ferocious behind-the-scenes opposition to the bundling provision. Few lawmakers were willing to cast a public vote to oppose letting their constituents know what the lawmakers themselves are already keenly aware of: just how much they are indebted to which lobbyists. In private, however, many Democrats fought to prevent the vote. It was only the steadfastness of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) that brought the measure to the floor. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) served a key role in offsetting the opposition of some members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
It's critical now that the bundling provision not be killed in the quiet of a conference committee. The Senate version of lobbying reform contains a slightly different bundling provision, which can easily be reconciled with the House measure.
Other provisions of the bill approved by the House yesterday would provide for more frequent and detailed disclosure, including lobbyists' contributions to lawmakers' charities. To win support for the bundling amendment, reformers had to abandon their effort to double, from one year to two, the cooling-off period for lawmakers and staff who leave the Hill for lobbying jobs. The Senate-passed lobbying bill includes this effort to slow the revolving door. That, too, should be part of the final package. In addition, the work of the House will not be complete until a credible ethics process is in place, one that includes an independent office to assess and investigate allegations of unethical conduct. A Pelosi-appointed task force is expected to come up with a proposal soon. That will be the Democratic majority's next test.
IT WASN'T EASY, it wasn't pretty and the battle isn't over, but the House managed yesterday to pass a credible ethics bill that would require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of campaign checks they round up for lawmakers. The lopsided 382 to 37 vote belied the ferocious behind-the-scenes opposition to the bundling provision. Few lawmakers were willing to cast a public vote to oppose letting their constituents know what the lawmakers themselves are already keenly aware of: just how much they are indebted to which lobbyists. In private, however, many Democrats fought to prevent the vote. It was only the steadfastness of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) that brought the measure to the floor. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) served a key role in offsetting the opposition of some members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
It's critical now that the bundling provision not be killed in the quiet of a conference committee. The Senate version of lobbying reform contains a slightly different bundling provision, which can easily be reconciled with the House measure.
Other provisions of the bill approved by the House yesterday would provide for more frequent and detailed disclosure, including lobbyists' contributions to lawmakers' charities. To win support for the bundling amendment, reformers had to abandon their effort to double, from one year to two, the cooling-off period for lawmakers and staff who leave the Hill for lobbying jobs. The Senate-passed lobbying bill includes this effort to slow the revolving door. That, too, should be part of the final package. In addition, the work of the House will not be complete until a credible ethics process is in place, one that includes an independent office to assess and investigate allegations of unethical conduct. A Pelosi-appointed task force is expected to come up with a proposal soon. That will be the Democratic majority's next test.
pns27
07-14 02:45 AM
Dude, you are one confused person.........whats the point here??
EB-3 India is somehow "special" and all you whiners in EB-3 India should get your GCs before EB-2 folks becuase blah blah blah........WHAT???
are you insane?? you make no sense in your argument.
Numbers fall as EB1--> EB2 --> EB3.
Dont like it, go get an education and/or an EB-2 level job. Else shut up. You have nothing to say.
Duoo�de chillout, why are you shutting at me? I don�t have any beef with you. I am just making my point here. which is, each EB group gets equal quota of 33.33%. And there in no preference or priority given how many visas are issued in the annual quota. The preference is only in the spillover.
Coming to my case, I have Bachelors in Engineering and Masters in Computer scinces form US. My company�s HR and Attorney then in 2002 decided and filed my case in EB3 even though I and my Job qualify for EB2 ( I was not working for desi company when I filed my CG, I still work with the same company) my PD is June 2002. I am happy and comfortable in the company, they pay well. Not having CG did not any stop my growth here. I Have no complaints for my situation and I am not blaming any one for my plight and the choices I have made and I stand by with them.
See I am to close to getting my GC so me changing to another company to change to EB2 when everything is working great for me is not a good idea.
Friend Rolling_Flood you take it easy now, no need to get exited.
EB-3 India is somehow "special" and all you whiners in EB-3 India should get your GCs before EB-2 folks becuase blah blah blah........WHAT???
are you insane?? you make no sense in your argument.
Numbers fall as EB1--> EB2 --> EB3.
Dont like it, go get an education and/or an EB-2 level job. Else shut up. You have nothing to say.
Duoo�de chillout, why are you shutting at me? I don�t have any beef with you. I am just making my point here. which is, each EB group gets equal quota of 33.33%. And there in no preference or priority given how many visas are issued in the annual quota. The preference is only in the spillover.
Coming to my case, I have Bachelors in Engineering and Masters in Computer scinces form US. My company�s HR and Attorney then in 2002 decided and filed my case in EB3 even though I and my Job qualify for EB2 ( I was not working for desi company when I filed my CG, I still work with the same company) my PD is June 2002. I am happy and comfortable in the company, they pay well. Not having CG did not any stop my growth here. I Have no complaints for my situation and I am not blaming any one for my plight and the choices I have made and I stand by with them.
See I am to close to getting my GC so me changing to another company to change to EB2 when everything is working great for me is not a good idea.
Friend Rolling_Flood you take it easy now, no need to get exited.
hopefulgc
08-07 12:59 PM
All monkeys also interfiled and became lions
hilarious!
hilarious!