senthil1
04-07 11:35 AM
If H1b quota is increased last 2 years it could have done easily as quota was reached much before the start of year. Without union support same thing is going to happen this year as last year. IV members has to wait years to get gc. They will use H1b as shield to gc reform and no one will get anything. Possiblity is H1b and GC provisions can be passed without much visiblity when CIR is passed. Majority of US people does not want unlimited immigration in any section whether legal or illegal. Opinion polls show that. US people wanted moderate increase in immigration and that is reflected in congress but pro immigrants want unlimited number in legal and illegal. That is the problem
I am glad IV is taking a strong stand against this bill. IV should work with Compete America (they have more of a vested interests in this) to make sure this bill doesn't see the light of day.
This bill is introduced by 'Pro-Illegal,pro-union and protectionist' section of Democratic party and 'Anti-immigration at all cost' section of the Republican party. I believe both these groups are fringe elements in both parties. But they could use this bill as a bargain chip for CIR and might get it passed because of it. So we should not take this lightly even if we might not be screwed by this. It will definitely hurt people coming behind us.
Only reform H1b needs is to increase the quota or have no quota. And also to tie the H1b to the worker and not to the employee. And I dont see any in this bill.
I am glad IV is taking a strong stand against this bill. IV should work with Compete America (they have more of a vested interests in this) to make sure this bill doesn't see the light of day.
This bill is introduced by 'Pro-Illegal,pro-union and protectionist' section of Democratic party and 'Anti-immigration at all cost' section of the Republican party. I believe both these groups are fringe elements in both parties. But they could use this bill as a bargain chip for CIR and might get it passed because of it. So we should not take this lightly even if we might not be screwed by this. It will definitely hurt people coming behind us.
Only reform H1b needs is to increase the quota or have no quota. And also to tie the H1b to the worker and not to the employee. And I dont see any in this bill.
wallpaper free games amp; color ooks for
bklog_sufferer
09-30 04:23 PM
I totally agree with the orginal poster, if Obama wins the presidency our chances getting GC any time soon will diminish as the CIR will never include any provisions that benefit EB immigrants.
If that happens, and if I have to wait for my GC for another 4 years (already waiting here since 2003, applied for GC in 2003, but came to US in 2000) then I will sell my house and move back to home country.
If that happens, and if I have to wait for my GC for another 4 years (already waiting here since 2003, applied for GC in 2003, but came to US in 2000) then I will sell my house and move back to home country.
nojoke
01-04 04:42 AM
What is your experience with secret service and snipers? You seem to be so sure about that let's see your expertise on that.
Regarding, that was not a war against terrorist in the beginning. Now it is.
Pakistanis are good people too. Do not take an isolated attack in India conducted by terrorists as a generic approach please.
You sounded that it was easy to do it and sounded like an expert. So prove me it is easy. Common sense tells me that it is difficult and suicidal for someone to infiltrate and shot.
My point is- Iraq was not involved in the terror and now created terrorist because US invaded that country. So your example that invading Pakistan will result in the same is wrong. Pakistan already has terrorists.
Yes, there are good pakistanis. But they are fed propaganda and hatred towards India. They are going to turn a blind eye when it comes to terrorism done against India. They will refuse to won up and give excuse. You can see this in this forum.
Regarding, that was not a war against terrorist in the beginning. Now it is.
Pakistanis are good people too. Do not take an isolated attack in India conducted by terrorists as a generic approach please.
You sounded that it was easy to do it and sounded like an expert. So prove me it is easy. Common sense tells me that it is difficult and suicidal for someone to infiltrate and shot.
My point is- Iraq was not involved in the terror and now created terrorist because US invaded that country. So your example that invading Pakistan will result in the same is wrong. Pakistan already has terrorists.
Yes, there are good pakistanis. But they are fed propaganda and hatred towards India. They are going to turn a blind eye when it comes to terrorism done against India. They will refuse to won up and give excuse. You can see this in this forum.
2011 Online Books for Grade School
nojoke
01-03 04:05 PM
You are right. And so it is imperative that before that happens, the perpetrators and their handlers are hunted down, exposed and punished, in a credible and transparent manner.
Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why.
What apology?
I am not responsible for the actions of those people. Imagine if after 9/11, an American asked you to apologize for the actions of the 19 'Brown men' (I am assuming here that you are a south asian male) who killed 3000 Americans, how silly do you think that situation would be. If cockroaches from my house take a dump in your kitchen, don't ask me to apologize for that.
If you cannot take actions on these terrorists and keep giving reasons for not handing over the terrorists, you don't have any credibility to give us advice. You don't even feel that your country men are responsible and you ask us to modify our behavior. How about going and doing something to change your country first? Meanwhile we will ponder if war is the only option left, because nothing else seems to be working...
If I cannot convince you to agree to hand over Dawood Ibrahim, how do you think Pakistan government will be convinced even if the evidence is provided against the culprits? There are always reasons to justify your actions. Even if we succeed to convince your government, it will say ' there is no extradition treaty. So let us talk on signing one first. And BTW, the treaty is signed after the Bombay incident, so we cannot extradite people for past crimes. And we cannot prosecute them because they didn't break pakistan law.' That is why I said 'we cannot wake up people pretending to be sleeping'. If you want to be sincere, start taking the first step. Hand over Ibrahim.
Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why.
What apology?
I am not responsible for the actions of those people. Imagine if after 9/11, an American asked you to apologize for the actions of the 19 'Brown men' (I am assuming here that you are a south asian male) who killed 3000 Americans, how silly do you think that situation would be. If cockroaches from my house take a dump in your kitchen, don't ask me to apologize for that.
If you cannot take actions on these terrorists and keep giving reasons for not handing over the terrorists, you don't have any credibility to give us advice. You don't even feel that your country men are responsible and you ask us to modify our behavior. How about going and doing something to change your country first? Meanwhile we will ponder if war is the only option left, because nothing else seems to be working...
If I cannot convince you to agree to hand over Dawood Ibrahim, how do you think Pakistan government will be convinced even if the evidence is provided against the culprits? There are always reasons to justify your actions. Even if we succeed to convince your government, it will say ' there is no extradition treaty. So let us talk on signing one first. And BTW, the treaty is signed after the Bombay incident, so we cannot extradite people for past crimes. And we cannot prosecute them because they didn't break pakistan law.' That is why I said 'we cannot wake up people pretending to be sleeping'. If you want to be sincere, start taking the first step. Hand over Ibrahim.
more...
WantGCQuick
06-08 10:11 AM
I think nowadays you can get great deals in suwanee area, but in alpharetta area (ATLANTA) which is couple of exits towards the city on 400 highway.. are still selling for 400K..I am talking about 3000 sq ft, houses.. I got a quote for 420K with basement 3070 sqft.. with decent upgrades...
and these homes are closely built compared to the ones in suwanee area..
The homes prices never came down in these areas!!
and these homes are closely built compared to the ones in suwanee area..
The homes prices never came down in these areas!!
unitednations
08-02 10:51 PM
ouch. there is always uncertainty, all steps of this gc process :(
thanks for the note. I only hope they 'go after' people if they suspect fraud or out of status or salary issues etc.
We are just a widget/number to uscis adjudicator. All of these ability to pay denials were very scarce prior to 2004. However, in 2003 and 2004 a lot of the 245i labors got approved (gas stations, restaurants, etc.). USCIS started to see a lot of bogus companies filing for people. They decided to clarify in a memo how they were going to look at ability to pay. Now; ability to pay was used rarely, in those cases that didn't look genuine (if you go to AAO decisions you would have seen the type of companies that uscis usually went after). However, to combat the 245i labors they started to apply the memo to all companies. Just imagine that a company with $20 million revenue can get ability to pay denials; but a company with $15,000 in revenue can get approval.
thanks for the note. I only hope they 'go after' people if they suspect fraud or out of status or salary issues etc.
We are just a widget/number to uscis adjudicator. All of these ability to pay denials were very scarce prior to 2004. However, in 2003 and 2004 a lot of the 245i labors got approved (gas stations, restaurants, etc.). USCIS started to see a lot of bogus companies filing for people. They decided to clarify in a memo how they were going to look at ability to pay. Now; ability to pay was used rarely, in those cases that didn't look genuine (if you go to AAO decisions you would have seen the type of companies that uscis usually went after). However, to combat the 245i labors they started to apply the memo to all companies. Just imagine that a company with $20 million revenue can get ability to pay denials; but a company with $15,000 in revenue can get approval.
more...
akred
04-07 03:09 PM
Let me guess, you work at a R&D facility, right? May be, looking for the best way to fit in your individual situation. No offense meant, however, I would request IV and its membership to have a bigger perspective in dealing whit this bill. Otherwise, 500,000 people will be systematically purged from US. And that includes most people waiting for their green cards.
For sure, this bill is bad. However I do think that the H1B program should have some way of making a distinction between what is essentially a market access issue for foreign companies and a means for domestic companies to hire foreign talent.
For sure, this bill is bad. However I do think that the H1B program should have some way of making a distinction between what is essentially a market access issue for foreign companies and a means for domestic companies to hire foreign talent.
2010 Cheap Best Online Books - Sale
pmb76
01-10 03:12 PM
With Israel on the offensive and so many jihadis getting whacked - don't you think that there'll be a serious shortage of virgins in jihadi heaven :D
more...
Macaca
12-30 05:35 PM
India Digs In Its Heels as China Flexes Its Muscles (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/world/asia/30india.html) By JIM YARDLEY | New York Times
It has been the season of geopolitical hugs in India � with one noticeable exception. One after the other, the leaders of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have descended on India, accompanied by delegations of business leaders, seeking closer ties with this rising South Asian giant. The Indian media, basking in the high-level attention, have nicknamed them the �P-5.�
Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain got a warm reception last summer. Then President Obama wowed a skeptical Indian establishment during his November visit. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France signed nuclear deals in early December, while President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia departed last week with a fistful of defense contracts after winning praise for Moscow as a �special partner.�
The exception to the cheery mood was the mid-December visit of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China. Mr. Wen did secure business deals, announce new trade goals and offer reassurances of friendly Chinese intentions. But the trip also underscored that many points of tension between the Asian giants � trade imbalances, their disputed border and the status of Kashmir � are growing worse. And the Indian foreign policy establishment, once reluctant to challenge China, is taking a harder line.
�The Wen visit has widened the gap publicly between India and China,� said Ranjit Gupta, a retired Indian diplomat and one of many vocal analysts pushing a more hawkish line toward China. �And it represents for the first time a greater realism in the Indian establishment�s approach to China.�
India aspires to membership on the United Nations Security Council, and China is now the only permanent member nation that has not explicitly endorsed such a move. But what has rattled Indian leaders even more is their contention that China is being deliberately provocative in Kashmir as it grows closer to Pakistan, China�s longtime ally and India�s nemesis. China has also been expanding its diplomatic and economic influence around South Asia, stepping up its involvement in the affairs of Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives.
Mr. Wen�s visit was supposed to help address those tensions at a time when India is starting to draw closer to the United States. Among Chinese leaders, Mr. Wen is perceived as a friend of India, and his 2005 visit was regarded as a breakthrough after he and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed on a broad framework to address the border dispute.
For decades since fighting a brief border war, the two countries had argued over the boundary lines, with China making claims to Arunachal Pradesh, an eastern Indian state, and India claiming portions of Tibet that abut Indian-controlled Kashmir. The 2005 deal fostered optimism that some sort of quid pro quo compromise could be reached, enabling the two countries to concentrate on trade. And trade took off: it has risen tenfold to almost $60 billion, with Mr. Wen setting a new goal of $100 billion.
But Indian leaders now complain that trade is far too lopsided in China�s favor and say that Indian corporations face too many obstacles in entering the Chinese market. Mr. Wen promised to help Indian corporations sell their products in China, but Indian officials are skeptical.
Meanwhile, China infuriated India by starting to issue special stapled paper visas � rather than the standard visa � for anyone in Indian-controlled Kashmir traveling to China on the grounds that Kashmir is a disputed territory. China later objected to including a top Indian general responsible for Kashmir in a military exchange in China. In response, Indian officials angrily suspended all military exchanges between the countries. Indian officials had thought Mr. Wen might reverse the stapled visas policy on his trip, but he instead only called for more diplomatic consultations.
Indian commentators have noticed that articles in the Chinese state-run media have renewed Chinese claims that the disputed border between the nations is roughly 1,240 miles in length � even as India puts the length at about 2,175 miles. The difference roughly represents the border between Indian-controlled Kashmir and Tibetan China. By omitting this section, the Chinese are questioning the status of Indian-controlled Kashmir, a position that buttresses Pakistan�s own claims, several Indian analysts have argued.
The most visible evidence that these problems were deepening came in the joint communiqu� issued by the two nations at the end of Mr. Wen�s visit. China typically demands that nations voice support for the one-China policy, which holds that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. In past communiqu�s, India has agreed to such language, but this time it was omitted, a clear sign of Indian irritation.
�It has been in every communiqu�, but the Chinese didn�t even bring it up,� said a senior Indian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. �I think they knew if they had brought it up, they knew we would have demanded some movement on the stapled visa issue and the Kashmir issue.�
The senior official added: �They must understand that there is a prospect of the relationship really going south. They will have to somehow moderate their stand on Kashmir. And they will have to take concrete steps to address the trade imbalance.�
India and China still cooperate on climate change and international trade policy, and some Indian diplomats grumble that the positive aspects of the relationship are too often overlooked by aggressive media organizations and an emboldened group of strategic analysts pushing for a harder line. China�s state-run media outlets recently broadcast images of a new tunnel being completed through the Himalayas near the Indian border. These reports looked to some like boasting about the country�s engineering prowess. In India, they were presented as a warning that China was building its infrastructure ever closer to India.
At the same time, India is watching warily as China pursues hydro projects that could affect the downstream flow of the Brahmaputra River in India.
Some Indian analysts note that tensions with China have increased in lockstep with the warming trend between India and the United States. During his visit, Mr. Obama spoke of a �defining partnership� between India and the United States and encouraged India to play a bigger role not only in South Asia but also in East Asia, China�s backyard. Mr. Singh, in fact, had just finished a trip to Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam as part of India�s �Look East� policy to build trade and diplomatic ties in the region.
�Our challenge will be to build our own leverage,� the senior Indian official said.
�That is why the relationships with the United States, with Japan, with other Southeast Asian parties, all that will become even more important.�
It has been the season of geopolitical hugs in India � with one noticeable exception. One after the other, the leaders of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have descended on India, accompanied by delegations of business leaders, seeking closer ties with this rising South Asian giant. The Indian media, basking in the high-level attention, have nicknamed them the �P-5.�
Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain got a warm reception last summer. Then President Obama wowed a skeptical Indian establishment during his November visit. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France signed nuclear deals in early December, while President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia departed last week with a fistful of defense contracts after winning praise for Moscow as a �special partner.�
The exception to the cheery mood was the mid-December visit of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China. Mr. Wen did secure business deals, announce new trade goals and offer reassurances of friendly Chinese intentions. But the trip also underscored that many points of tension between the Asian giants � trade imbalances, their disputed border and the status of Kashmir � are growing worse. And the Indian foreign policy establishment, once reluctant to challenge China, is taking a harder line.
�The Wen visit has widened the gap publicly between India and China,� said Ranjit Gupta, a retired Indian diplomat and one of many vocal analysts pushing a more hawkish line toward China. �And it represents for the first time a greater realism in the Indian establishment�s approach to China.�
India aspires to membership on the United Nations Security Council, and China is now the only permanent member nation that has not explicitly endorsed such a move. But what has rattled Indian leaders even more is their contention that China is being deliberately provocative in Kashmir as it grows closer to Pakistan, China�s longtime ally and India�s nemesis. China has also been expanding its diplomatic and economic influence around South Asia, stepping up its involvement in the affairs of Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives.
Mr. Wen�s visit was supposed to help address those tensions at a time when India is starting to draw closer to the United States. Among Chinese leaders, Mr. Wen is perceived as a friend of India, and his 2005 visit was regarded as a breakthrough after he and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed on a broad framework to address the border dispute.
For decades since fighting a brief border war, the two countries had argued over the boundary lines, with China making claims to Arunachal Pradesh, an eastern Indian state, and India claiming portions of Tibet that abut Indian-controlled Kashmir. The 2005 deal fostered optimism that some sort of quid pro quo compromise could be reached, enabling the two countries to concentrate on trade. And trade took off: it has risen tenfold to almost $60 billion, with Mr. Wen setting a new goal of $100 billion.
But Indian leaders now complain that trade is far too lopsided in China�s favor and say that Indian corporations face too many obstacles in entering the Chinese market. Mr. Wen promised to help Indian corporations sell their products in China, but Indian officials are skeptical.
Meanwhile, China infuriated India by starting to issue special stapled paper visas � rather than the standard visa � for anyone in Indian-controlled Kashmir traveling to China on the grounds that Kashmir is a disputed territory. China later objected to including a top Indian general responsible for Kashmir in a military exchange in China. In response, Indian officials angrily suspended all military exchanges between the countries. Indian officials had thought Mr. Wen might reverse the stapled visas policy on his trip, but he instead only called for more diplomatic consultations.
Indian commentators have noticed that articles in the Chinese state-run media have renewed Chinese claims that the disputed border between the nations is roughly 1,240 miles in length � even as India puts the length at about 2,175 miles. The difference roughly represents the border between Indian-controlled Kashmir and Tibetan China. By omitting this section, the Chinese are questioning the status of Indian-controlled Kashmir, a position that buttresses Pakistan�s own claims, several Indian analysts have argued.
The most visible evidence that these problems were deepening came in the joint communiqu� issued by the two nations at the end of Mr. Wen�s visit. China typically demands that nations voice support for the one-China policy, which holds that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. In past communiqu�s, India has agreed to such language, but this time it was omitted, a clear sign of Indian irritation.
�It has been in every communiqu�, but the Chinese didn�t even bring it up,� said a senior Indian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. �I think they knew if they had brought it up, they knew we would have demanded some movement on the stapled visa issue and the Kashmir issue.�
The senior official added: �They must understand that there is a prospect of the relationship really going south. They will have to somehow moderate their stand on Kashmir. And they will have to take concrete steps to address the trade imbalance.�
India and China still cooperate on climate change and international trade policy, and some Indian diplomats grumble that the positive aspects of the relationship are too often overlooked by aggressive media organizations and an emboldened group of strategic analysts pushing for a harder line. China�s state-run media outlets recently broadcast images of a new tunnel being completed through the Himalayas near the Indian border. These reports looked to some like boasting about the country�s engineering prowess. In India, they were presented as a warning that China was building its infrastructure ever closer to India.
At the same time, India is watching warily as China pursues hydro projects that could affect the downstream flow of the Brahmaputra River in India.
Some Indian analysts note that tensions with China have increased in lockstep with the warming trend between India and the United States. During his visit, Mr. Obama spoke of a �defining partnership� between India and the United States and encouraged India to play a bigger role not only in South Asia but also in East Asia, China�s backyard. Mr. Singh, in fact, had just finished a trip to Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam as part of India�s �Look East� policy to build trade and diplomatic ties in the region.
�Our challenge will be to build our own leverage,� the senior Indian official said.
�That is why the relationships with the United States, with Japan, with other Southeast Asian parties, all that will become even more important.�
hair used ooks online
gapala
12-17 04:47 PM
Nobody in good conscience support terrorism, no Indian, no Pakistani. I have many good friends from Pakistan and I do support Pakistan in its strive towards better and peaceful future. Does that make me a terrorist ?
Don't bring ISMs into the conversation. You started this post to trash specific community and you are getting there. Stop being a A-hole and get a life.
It feels good to read your posts but my friend, you are far off from reality. The folks who hijacked that religion and perverted belief that entire planet earth should be under sharia is the problem. I am not saying that all apples are bad.
Do you know what is happening in UK and other parts of Europe? Go search in google videos There are several investigative reports from main stream media are posted out there to educate people like you.
Now, you may choose to ignore the threat to humanity but that does not mean its not real.
I too have good friends from different parts of world but they themself believe that its a dangerous world. Ask your friends that you quoted in your post, they will tell you.
Don't bring ISMs into the conversation. You started this post to trash specific community and you are getting there. Stop being a A-hole and get a life.
It feels good to read your posts but my friend, you are far off from reality. The folks who hijacked that religion and perverted belief that entire planet earth should be under sharia is the problem. I am not saying that all apples are bad.
Do you know what is happening in UK and other parts of Europe? Go search in google videos There are several investigative reports from main stream media are posted out there to educate people like you.
Now, you may choose to ignore the threat to humanity but that does not mean its not real.
I too have good friends from different parts of world but they themself believe that its a dangerous world. Ask your friends that you quoted in your post, they will tell you.
more...
abracadabra102
08-29 10:02 AM
This is hilarious........
http://odeo.com/episodes/7076453
LOL. That guy is an !@# *&^%
http://odeo.com/episodes/7076453
LOL. That guy is an !@# *&^%
hot textbooks ar home school
sanju
12-29 02:29 PM
I do not know how much this true ,but one thing is sure America is helping ISLAM (As of today and popular belief that america is destroying ISLAM) ..
by clearing the mess out of Afganistan ,IRAQ and well sometime may be from IRAN ....
Why they are doing >>>> Why they are helping Israel and Attacking Countries which has vast muslim poulation and near to Israel ...Why not attacking Indonesia ,Malaysia ,Pakistan because the Bible has something like that
" Jews must have own land to have a Great ARMAGADEM WAR .When most of the jews will be defeated and killed ,few left will accept christanity. "
so how to achieve this . Please mind America is ruled by Conservative christian not by jews ...
Well read Bible and other books and you will able to judge .....
So I have tried to acknowledge two things " A country go for war when future is not safe" and America Need to keep Alive israel till the great ARMGADEM WAR " So you will say why america is havinng WAR "
Please note that Jews killed Jesus. This fact do not go well with conservative
I�ve heard some real whoppers in my life, but this one tops them all. I am sure your favroite movie is - Conspiracy Theory.
Cheers!
.
by clearing the mess out of Afganistan ,IRAQ and well sometime may be from IRAN ....
Why they are doing >>>> Why they are helping Israel and Attacking Countries which has vast muslim poulation and near to Israel ...Why not attacking Indonesia ,Malaysia ,Pakistan because the Bible has something like that
" Jews must have own land to have a Great ARMAGADEM WAR .When most of the jews will be defeated and killed ,few left will accept christanity. "
so how to achieve this . Please mind America is ruled by Conservative christian not by jews ...
Well read Bible and other books and you will able to judge .....
So I have tried to acknowledge two things " A country go for war when future is not safe" and America Need to keep Alive israel till the great ARMGADEM WAR " So you will say why america is havinng WAR "
Please note that Jews killed Jesus. This fact do not go well with conservative
I�ve heard some real whoppers in my life, but this one tops them all. I am sure your favroite movie is - Conspiracy Theory.
Cheers!
.
more...
house Trine University#39;s School of
delax
07-14 03:28 PM
I hope not. We dont seem to be open to another point of view. All of a sudden when the shoe is now on the other foot there is a lot of heart burn. Look up the March 2008 visa bulletin.
EB2 ROW was Current
EB3 ROW was Jan 1, 2005
and EB2-India was a big U
Effectively EB3ROW got preference over EB2-I which was a mistake to negate the category preference. This has been corrected now and I welcome the change.
Where was all this heart burn at that time. All of a sudden when EB2-I moves ahead I hear voices of 'injustice', fair play and demands for visa number handovers. Sorry aint gonna happen.
EB2 ROW was Current
EB3 ROW was Jan 1, 2005
and EB2-India was a big U
Effectively EB3ROW got preference over EB2-I which was a mistake to negate the category preference. This has been corrected now and I welcome the change.
Where was all this heart burn at that time. All of a sudden when EB2-I moves ahead I hear voices of 'injustice', fair play and demands for visa number handovers. Sorry aint gonna happen.
tattoo School Daze, Scenes and Songs
natrajs
08-05 11:14 AM
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. 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.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
I am a EB2 - I filer (This is my third EB2- 1st on 2001, 2nd on 2002 and finally I got settled with my third EB2 (2004) and employer)
I was lucky that all my employers were understands that I am EB2 plus the job description warranted for EB2, But in many EB3 cases they were exploited by attorneys and employers and it is very unfair
It�s my opinion, I am sure that you will differ on mine, that is ok,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. 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.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
I am a EB2 - I filer (This is my third EB2- 1st on 2001, 2nd on 2002 and finally I got settled with my third EB2 (2004) and employer)
I was lucky that all my employers were understands that I am EB2 plus the job description warranted for EB2, But in many EB3 cases they were exploited by attorneys and employers and it is very unfair
It�s my opinion, I am sure that you will differ on mine, that is ok,
more...
pictures online school supplies,
lfwf
08-05 02:37 PM
And let me add another twist to the story.
The Guy with Masters degree is working with a desi sweatshop and convinced his masters (No pun) to file for Eb2 even though his job duties were just dish out code like a high school grad can do. On the other hand there was another guy who was in US for a decade , gone though masters degree and got a very good job in a very good company. He was eligible for EB2 but his only mistake was to not force the company to file a EB2 case or even worse his lawyer makes a mistake and files under Eb3 even though the job he was in and he are qualified as Eb2. The company wants to make amends now by filing a EB2 case and first MS guy (sweatshop guy) wants him to start again and wait for another decade.
The kicker : The sweat shop labor guy works in the same company as contractor and reports to the second guy and in the same reporting chain, just two levels below him.
How about another story :
Both guys go to the same engg school back home. One guy passed with distinction and got a job immediately in a respectable company immediately. Other guy takes two additional years to finish the degree , but his dad was rich enough to send him to the US to complete the MS and now he thinks he is smarter than every one else and needs a special place in the queue.
You can come up with 100s of stories if not more. Therefore you can't generalize. Just don't think all those who filed under EB2 first are with MS and smarter than others and all those who are Eb3 are here by shady means.
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.
So let me come to the point, question for OP. Are you against all porting? Or only against porting based on lack of qualifications for an EB2 job originally- then porting 5 years later based on the additional experience alone?
BTW I resent the insinuation that 1% of EB2s are genuine. The same can be said of many many EB3s- remember the qualifications required are much lower.
I also resent the idea that all US Masters folks are just "rich kids". Most people work through the degree and/or take loans. Please don't start making needless statements. If you had a masters originally and your job qualified as EB2 but your company refused- I feel for you, I really do. There should be a solution to your problem. That does not mean that those who did get EB2 were all suddenly not "genuine".
Also I want to clarify something- this is purely objective now. Yes GC is for a "future job" but folks are over reaching with some of the arguments. In order to get an EB2 (or EB3) for this "future job- you either have to show current employment with the sponsor OR show the job offer qualifying for that category at the time you apply. The "future job" cannot be a nebulous idea that you make concrete at a later time.
The Guy with Masters degree is working with a desi sweatshop and convinced his masters (No pun) to file for Eb2 even though his job duties were just dish out code like a high school grad can do. On the other hand there was another guy who was in US for a decade , gone though masters degree and got a very good job in a very good company. He was eligible for EB2 but his only mistake was to not force the company to file a EB2 case or even worse his lawyer makes a mistake and files under Eb3 even though the job he was in and he are qualified as Eb2. The company wants to make amends now by filing a EB2 case and first MS guy (sweatshop guy) wants him to start again and wait for another decade.
The kicker : The sweat shop labor guy works in the same company as contractor and reports to the second guy and in the same reporting chain, just two levels below him.
How about another story :
Both guys go to the same engg school back home. One guy passed with distinction and got a job immediately in a respectable company immediately. Other guy takes two additional years to finish the degree , but his dad was rich enough to send him to the US to complete the MS and now he thinks he is smarter than every one else and needs a special place in the queue.
You can come up with 100s of stories if not more. Therefore you can't generalize. Just don't think all those who filed under EB2 first are with MS and smarter than others and all those who are Eb3 are here by shady means.
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.
So let me come to the point, question for OP. Are you against all porting? Or only against porting based on lack of qualifications for an EB2 job originally- then porting 5 years later based on the additional experience alone?
BTW I resent the insinuation that 1% of EB2s are genuine. The same can be said of many many EB3s- remember the qualifications required are much lower.
I also resent the idea that all US Masters folks are just "rich kids". Most people work through the degree and/or take loans. Please don't start making needless statements. If you had a masters originally and your job qualified as EB2 but your company refused- I feel for you, I really do. There should be a solution to your problem. That does not mean that those who did get EB2 were all suddenly not "genuine".
Also I want to clarify something- this is purely objective now. Yes GC is for a "future job" but folks are over reaching with some of the arguments. In order to get an EB2 (or EB3) for this "future job- you either have to show current employment with the sponsor OR show the job offer qualifying for that category at the time you apply. The "future job" cannot be a nebulous idea that you make concrete at a later time.
dresses Some textbooks cost more than
willwin
07-14 08:09 AM
willwin - What we are essentially saying is to artificially retrogress EB2 than it otherwise would have so that an EB3 who is waiting for 7 years gets his GC first - thats really what the spillover break up will do. Similarly an argument can be made to artificially retrogress EB1 so that an EB2 who is waiting for 4 years gets his GC first.
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
fine, then why are we working so hard to remove the per country limit? That was set by law too!!!
We can't pick only those options that would favor us. Sometimes changes bring hard-luck.
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
fine, then why are we working so hard to remove the per country limit? That was set by law too!!!
We can't pick only those options that would favor us. Sometimes changes bring hard-luck.
more...
makeup Middle School Textbooks 11-12
panky72
09-27 11:07 PM
If you visit this website, you can read Obama's policies on legal Immigration reform. It looks like Obama and Joe Biden plan to fix the legal immigration system and improve processing speed due to bureaucratic delays. He also introduced the legislation to speed up FBI background checks.
Source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/
I found this on shusterman's regarding obama's views on immigration. Looks like he is all for family based immigration but no mention about employment based immigrants or green card backlogs.
http://shusterman.com/pdf/obama908.pdf
Source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/
I found this on shusterman's regarding obama's views on immigration. Looks like he is all for family based immigration but no mention about employment based immigrants or green card backlogs.
http://shusterman.com/pdf/obama908.pdf
girlfriend printable old ook covers
Marphad
12-17 01:52 PM
People like Antulay are real traitors of India. Who know they may be taking instructions from Pakistan ISI? Such people go unpunish is the main reason India was slave for 2000 years.
They need to be procecuted.
When I started this thread, I knew for sure that some terrorism supporting back stabbers will start giving me Red, and it happened :).
This is all they were taught from which ever the school (they call that junk yard as school - don't laugh) they went through to attack people from back.
They need to be procecuted.
When I started this thread, I knew for sure that some terrorism supporting back stabbers will start giving me Red, and it happened :).
This is all they were taught from which ever the school (they call that junk yard as school - don't laugh) they went through to attack people from back.
hairstyles Buy Books Online
Macaca
12-14 11:40 AM
Plan B For Pelosi And Reid (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/congressional_democrats_need_n.html) By E. J. Dionne | Washington Post, December 14, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats need a Plan B.
Republicans chortle as they block Democratic initiatives -- and accuse the majority of being unable to govern. Rank-and-filers are furious their leaders can't end the Iraq War. President Bush sits back and vetoes at will.
Worse, Democrats are starting to blame each other, with those in the House wondering why their Senate colleagues don't force Republicans to engage in grueling, old-fashioned filibusters. Instead, the GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 votes. Senators defend themselves by saying that their House colleagues don't understand how the august "upper" chamber works these days.
If Bush's strategy is to drag Congress down to his low level of public esteem, he is succeeding brilliantly. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released earlier this week found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of his job -- and just 32 percent felt positively about Congress' performance. The only comfort for Democrats: The public dislikes Republicans in Congress (32 percent approval) even more than it dislikes congressional Democrats (40 percent approval).
The Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president.
In an ideal world, Democrats would pass a lot of legislation that Bush would either have to sign or veto. The president would have to take responsibility for his choices. The House has passed many bills, but the Republican minority has enormous power in the Senate to keep the legislation from ever getting to the president's desk. This creates the impression that action is being stalled through some vague and nefarious congressional "process."
Not only can a minority block action in the Senate, but the Democrats' nominal one-vote majority is frequently not a majority at all. A few maverick Democrats often defect, and the party runs short-handed when Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama are off running for president.
And Bush is learning that even when bills reach his desk, he can veto them with near impunity. On Wednesday, Bush issued his second veto of a bill to extend coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to 10 million kids. Democrats have the high ground on the issue and more than two-thirds support in the Senate, but the bill lacks a veto-proof House majority.
After Bush vetoed the first version of the SCHIP bill, Democrats changed it slightly to make it more attractive to Republicans. And the new version passed both houses too. When Bush vetoed the SCHIP measure again, almost nobody paid attention. The Washington Post ran a three-paragraph story on the corner of page A18; The New York Times ran a longer story -- on page A29.
Democrats can't even get credit for doing the right thing. If Congress and Bush don't act, the alternative minimum tax -- originally designed to affect only Americans with very high incomes -- will raise taxes on about 20 million middle- and upper-middle-class people for whom it was never intended.
Democrats want to protect those taxpayers, but also keep their pay-as-you-go promise to offset new spending or tax cuts with tax increases or program cuts elsewhere. They would finance AMT relief with $50 billion in new taxes on the very wealthiest Americans or corporations. The Republicans say no, just pass the AMT fix.
Here's a guarantee: If the Democrats fail to pass AMT relief, they will be blamed for raising taxes on the middle class. If they pass it without the tax increase, deficit hawks will accuse them of selling out.
What's the alternative to the internecine Democratic finger-pointing of the sort that made the front page of Thursday's Washington Post? The party's congressional leaders need to do whatever they must to put this year behind them. Then they need to stop whining. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should put aside any ill feelings and use the Christmas break to come up with a joint program for 2008.
They could start with the best ideas from their presidential candidates in areas such as health care, education, cures for the ailing economy and poverty-reduction. Agree to bring the same bills to a vote in both houses. Try one more time to change the direction of Iraq policy. If Bush and the Republicans block their efforts, bring all these issues into the campaign. Let the voters break the gridlock.
If Democrats don't make the 2008 election about the Do-Nothing Republicans, the GOP has its own ideas about whom to hold responsible for Washington's paralysis. And if House and Senate Democrats waste their time attacking each other, they will deserve any blame they get next fall.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats need a Plan B.
Republicans chortle as they block Democratic initiatives -- and accuse the majority of being unable to govern. Rank-and-filers are furious their leaders can't end the Iraq War. President Bush sits back and vetoes at will.
Worse, Democrats are starting to blame each other, with those in the House wondering why their Senate colleagues don't force Republicans to engage in grueling, old-fashioned filibusters. Instead, the GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 votes. Senators defend themselves by saying that their House colleagues don't understand how the august "upper" chamber works these days.
If Bush's strategy is to drag Congress down to his low level of public esteem, he is succeeding brilliantly. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released earlier this week found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of his job -- and just 32 percent felt positively about Congress' performance. The only comfort for Democrats: The public dislikes Republicans in Congress (32 percent approval) even more than it dislikes congressional Democrats (40 percent approval).
The Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president.
In an ideal world, Democrats would pass a lot of legislation that Bush would either have to sign or veto. The president would have to take responsibility for his choices. The House has passed many bills, but the Republican minority has enormous power in the Senate to keep the legislation from ever getting to the president's desk. This creates the impression that action is being stalled through some vague and nefarious congressional "process."
Not only can a minority block action in the Senate, but the Democrats' nominal one-vote majority is frequently not a majority at all. A few maverick Democrats often defect, and the party runs short-handed when Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama are off running for president.
And Bush is learning that even when bills reach his desk, he can veto them with near impunity. On Wednesday, Bush issued his second veto of a bill to extend coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to 10 million kids. Democrats have the high ground on the issue and more than two-thirds support in the Senate, but the bill lacks a veto-proof House majority.
After Bush vetoed the first version of the SCHIP bill, Democrats changed it slightly to make it more attractive to Republicans. And the new version passed both houses too. When Bush vetoed the SCHIP measure again, almost nobody paid attention. The Washington Post ran a three-paragraph story on the corner of page A18; The New York Times ran a longer story -- on page A29.
Democrats can't even get credit for doing the right thing. If Congress and Bush don't act, the alternative minimum tax -- originally designed to affect only Americans with very high incomes -- will raise taxes on about 20 million middle- and upper-middle-class people for whom it was never intended.
Democrats want to protect those taxpayers, but also keep their pay-as-you-go promise to offset new spending or tax cuts with tax increases or program cuts elsewhere. They would finance AMT relief with $50 billion in new taxes on the very wealthiest Americans or corporations. The Republicans say no, just pass the AMT fix.
Here's a guarantee: If the Democrats fail to pass AMT relief, they will be blamed for raising taxes on the middle class. If they pass it without the tax increase, deficit hawks will accuse them of selling out.
What's the alternative to the internecine Democratic finger-pointing of the sort that made the front page of Thursday's Washington Post? The party's congressional leaders need to do whatever they must to put this year behind them. Then they need to stop whining. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should put aside any ill feelings and use the Christmas break to come up with a joint program for 2008.
They could start with the best ideas from their presidential candidates in areas such as health care, education, cures for the ailing economy and poverty-reduction. Agree to bring the same bills to a vote in both houses. Try one more time to change the direction of Iraq policy. If Bush and the Republicans block their efforts, bring all these issues into the campaign. Let the voters break the gridlock.
If Democrats don't make the 2008 election about the Do-Nothing Republicans, the GOP has its own ideas about whom to hold responsible for Washington's paralysis. And if House and Senate Democrats waste their time attacking each other, they will deserve any blame they get next fall.
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
abracadabra102
01-06 07:21 PM
The palestine problem was created by British people without considering Palestian's approval for the same. What palestinians are asking is their legitimate right. So Hamas is not the first party to blame for palestinian's problem. But Britain is the first person.
You can blame Hamas for wrong approach to the problem which aggravated the problem in such a way that it can not be solved. Also due to Hamas, Palestinians are suffering like anything. God bless all innocent people who suffers.
British essentially turned over the issue to UN and pulled out of that region after second world war. As a conquering nation, Britain will certainly get some blame for almost all world issues of 20th century (like Indo-Pakistan division and aftermath).
In fact there was Israeli Irgun which was more like Hamas during formation of Israel. These activities stopped once state of Israel is formed. Perhaps same thing might have happened with Palestine as well. Isreal was willing to yield some areas for palestine state and Jordan, Syria and Egypt could have easily given up some of the land if there is any shortfall. Instead they drummed up Palestine passions and in the end grabbed some of Palestine land rendering them homeless. It is a tragedy that Palestines are now living like refugees in their homeland.
Bill Clinton tried real hard to settle this issue and the Israeli prime minister at the time virtually sacrificed his political career with that agreement. Arab countries should have talked sense into Arafat and probably should have given up some of their land for a lasting peace. But that was the last thing on their agenda.
You can blame Hamas for wrong approach to the problem which aggravated the problem in such a way that it can not be solved. Also due to Hamas, Palestinians are suffering like anything. God bless all innocent people who suffers.
British essentially turned over the issue to UN and pulled out of that region after second world war. As a conquering nation, Britain will certainly get some blame for almost all world issues of 20th century (like Indo-Pakistan division and aftermath).
In fact there was Israeli Irgun which was more like Hamas during formation of Israel. These activities stopped once state of Israel is formed. Perhaps same thing might have happened with Palestine as well. Isreal was willing to yield some areas for palestine state and Jordan, Syria and Egypt could have easily given up some of the land if there is any shortfall. Instead they drummed up Palestine passions and in the end grabbed some of Palestine land rendering them homeless. It is a tragedy that Palestines are now living like refugees in their homeland.
Bill Clinton tried real hard to settle this issue and the Israeli prime minister at the time virtually sacrificed his political career with that agreement. Arab countries should have talked sense into Arafat and probably should have given up some of their land for a lasting peace. But that was the last thing on their agenda.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق