learning01
05-24 11:59 AM
how can you say that the increase is not fair? Do you know how dependent and hungry these American Corporations, Universities or Research labs are? These are operating on a global scale. Innovation and Entrepreneurship are global traits. That's what these employers are seeking and getting.
And Why not? A coke that costs about 5 c, the concentrate is made here and sent to China, Vietnam or Africa and sold 10 times more. And part the money comes back to this country, to its investors?
Come on, you can't be so simple and naive? Grow up my friend. Read a wide variety of subjects. Tune less to the idiot box (TV), that shuts out all logical and analytical human ablities; instead it sways folks.
The need for high skilled professionals is market driven and need based. Why would one spend atleast 10K to try to get even one H1. In advertising, in Labor Certifications, in foreign recriutment, then bringing him here.
Brother, nobody does H1 employment for charity or social service. Not in this country. Not in any country. On the contrary. This country has dire need for nurses and other health care professionals. They are getting them here on a straight Green Card, on a silver platter. I am sure you must be aware of that.
Americans are simply not enrolling in these high risk, hard work professions. period. QED.
What say you?
Folks,
And Why not? A coke that costs about 5 c, the concentrate is made here and sent to China, Vietnam or Africa and sold 10 times more. And part the money comes back to this country, to its investors?
Come on, you can't be so simple and naive? Grow up my friend. Read a wide variety of subjects. Tune less to the idiot box (TV), that shuts out all logical and analytical human ablities; instead it sways folks.
The need for high skilled professionals is market driven and need based. Why would one spend atleast 10K to try to get even one H1. In advertising, in Labor Certifications, in foreign recriutment, then bringing him here.
Brother, nobody does H1 employment for charity or social service. Not in this country. Not in any country. On the contrary. This country has dire need for nurses and other health care professionals. They are getting them here on a straight Green Card, on a silver platter. I am sure you must be aware of that.
Americans are simply not enrolling in these high risk, hard work professions. period. QED.
What say you?
Folks,
wallpaper Adidas Logo Branding
mariner5555
03-23 10:23 PM
This whole GC process is unpredictable. Don't waste ur life for it. Do whatever u think is best for you. It will be America on the loosing side if they deny u the GC after u have bought the home.
it is not just america losing - the person who has bought the house would lose his downpayment / equity too -not to speak of the mighty credit score - am I right ??
depends on yr situation and your priorities and more important the place where you are planning to buy. is it in florida, mich, Ohio, california or nevada (I guess no - else you would not have asked this question). if you think of a house as investment and you dont want to take a loss - then wait. if you need the space desperately and you are o.k with the prospect of yr house depreciating for couple of years - then go ahead and buy. BTW there was another thread where this was discussed in detail
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17986
it is not just america losing - the person who has bought the house would lose his downpayment / equity too -not to speak of the mighty credit score - am I right ??
depends on yr situation and your priorities and more important the place where you are planning to buy. is it in florida, mich, Ohio, california or nevada (I guess no - else you would not have asked this question). if you think of a house as investment and you dont want to take a loss - then wait. if you need the space desperately and you are o.k with the prospect of yr house depreciating for couple of years - then go ahead and buy. BTW there was another thread where this was discussed in detail
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17986
go_guy123
07-28 03:29 PM
Atleast republicans listen to Microsoft, Google etc and gives some visa etc...AllObama does is warn about Indians and Chinese growth
You are right... dealing with Republicans is easier ....they listen to American Chamber of Commerce, ITAA et al. When Tom Delay was incharge....it was straight forward. you fund GOP, we will look after you.
GOP taps the cash of industry...and leverages the anger of extreme right (mainly against illegal immigrants, gays and anti-gun/anti-god issues) Works good for skilled immigrants.
Yes there are nuts like...Tom Tancredo but GOP whips takes care of those (Note: GOP is a party that demands loyalty. Had it being the GOP, they would have extarcted revenge from Joe Liberman for disloyaty). It is the democratic paty that has historically faced infighting.
Since 1994 it was the GOP in charge and thats also a reason H1B got the AC21 etc.
You are right... dealing with Republicans is easier ....they listen to American Chamber of Commerce, ITAA et al. When Tom Delay was incharge....it was straight forward. you fund GOP, we will look after you.
GOP taps the cash of industry...and leverages the anger of extreme right (mainly against illegal immigrants, gays and anti-gun/anti-god issues) Works good for skilled immigrants.
Yes there are nuts like...Tom Tancredo but GOP whips takes care of those (Note: GOP is a party that demands loyalty. Had it being the GOP, they would have extarcted revenge from Joe Liberman for disloyaty). It is the democratic paty that has historically faced infighting.
Since 1994 it was the GOP in charge and thats also a reason H1B got the AC21 etc.
2011 X Adidas Originals
Macaca
12-27 08:33 PM
The Speaker's Grand Illusion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/26/AR2007122601484.html) Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats Need to Get Real About What They've Accomplished By David S. Broder | Washington Post, Dec 27, 2007
After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Post poll this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.
In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.
In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."
While surveys by The Post and other news organizations show that the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures -- with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."
That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low -- measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.
There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.
One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises.
An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.
But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground -- a potential weak point in the coming election.
The major Democratic presidential hopefuls all have their political careers rooted in Congress, and the vulnerabilities of that Congress will in time come home to roost with them. Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.
That is another reason it behooves the Democrats to get real about their own record on Capitol Hill. It needs improvement. And in less than a year, the voters will deliver their own verdict.
After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Post poll this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.
In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.
In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."
While surveys by The Post and other news organizations show that the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures -- with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."
That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low -- measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.
There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.
One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises.
An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.
But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground -- a potential weak point in the coming election.
The major Democratic presidential hopefuls all have their political careers rooted in Congress, and the vulnerabilities of that Congress will in time come home to roost with them. Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.
That is another reason it behooves the Democrats to get real about their own record on Capitol Hill. It needs improvement. And in less than a year, the voters will deliver their own verdict.
more...
unitednations
08-02 10:47 PM
Thanks for your valuable suggestions UN.
So, do you think it's a better to take a letter from the current employer stating that the position will be available at the time of GC approval, just in case?
Also if I start working on EAD before 180 days, will that cause any problems in getting I-485 approval?
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help.
Keep in mind that not many people post all of these issues. People keep these types of rfe's, denials closely guarded. When I used to have my contact info. on the boards; people would call me and discuss with me and I would remember a similar posting. The posting would have been that persons but what they posted had only 10% of the story of what it really was. Point is that people need to educate themselves on these scenarios. At the same time; uscis usually just goes and approves the case by glossing over it and missing it. However, when you get an adjudicator who wants to make a mark for him/herself they may go after these gray areas. I was pretty ignorant about it until my case went for a loop and then I got obsessed with learning these issues.
From a common sense point of view; future base employment or if you leave an employer before 485 is pending for less then 180 days and say you had intent to work with them until 485 was pending for 180 days is pretty much not genuine. However; it is in the law. If uscis sees that you were working with a company and left early and said you were going to return or had intent up until 180 days was over to join them; then they can start going after the intent issue. That is; if you went to self employed, totally different field; made substantially more money and said that you still had intent up until 180 days to join upon greencard approval; then you have to be really careful about it.
Confusion within the law is that ac21 says you can "switch" employers after 180 days. The word "switch" implies that you were in that employment for 180 days and then you changed.
However; uscis clarified in all of the memos that since greencard is future base; there is no standard to even work with the employer until greencard is approved. Since there is no standard to work with them prior to approval then a person could use ac21 to change "intention" after 180 days. However; they always talk about "intent", "bona fide", etc. These words have so much wiggle room for uscis to abuse their powers or make things difficult for you.
If you wanted to be on the safe side, just in case uscis asked then you should get an updated offer letter at the 180 day mark that the job is still open once you get the greencard approved.
So, do you think it's a better to take a letter from the current employer stating that the position will be available at the time of GC approval, just in case?
Also if I start working on EAD before 180 days, will that cause any problems in getting I-485 approval?
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help.
Keep in mind that not many people post all of these issues. People keep these types of rfe's, denials closely guarded. When I used to have my contact info. on the boards; people would call me and discuss with me and I would remember a similar posting. The posting would have been that persons but what they posted had only 10% of the story of what it really was. Point is that people need to educate themselves on these scenarios. At the same time; uscis usually just goes and approves the case by glossing over it and missing it. However, when you get an adjudicator who wants to make a mark for him/herself they may go after these gray areas. I was pretty ignorant about it until my case went for a loop and then I got obsessed with learning these issues.
From a common sense point of view; future base employment or if you leave an employer before 485 is pending for less then 180 days and say you had intent to work with them until 485 was pending for 180 days is pretty much not genuine. However; it is in the law. If uscis sees that you were working with a company and left early and said you were going to return or had intent up until 180 days was over to join them; then they can start going after the intent issue. That is; if you went to self employed, totally different field; made substantially more money and said that you still had intent up until 180 days to join upon greencard approval; then you have to be really careful about it.
Confusion within the law is that ac21 says you can "switch" employers after 180 days. The word "switch" implies that you were in that employment for 180 days and then you changed.
However; uscis clarified in all of the memos that since greencard is future base; there is no standard to even work with the employer until greencard is approved. Since there is no standard to work with them prior to approval then a person could use ac21 to change "intention" after 180 days. However; they always talk about "intent", "bona fide", etc. These words have so much wiggle room for uscis to abuse their powers or make things difficult for you.
If you wanted to be on the safe side, just in case uscis asked then you should get an updated offer letter at the 180 day mark that the job is still open once you get the greencard approved.
DallasBlue
07-08 09:48 PM
The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Very insightful.
So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Very insightful.
So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.
more...
Michigan123
12-29 12:59 PM
"The great Athenian historian Thucydides, writing almost 2500 years ago, concluded that one reason a nation goes to war is a perception of waning power: act now because the future looks worse than the present. The scale of the assault on Gaza suggests that the Olmert government is validating Thucydides' analysis: embarking on the end game to crush Hamas before it gets stronger, and Israel's position gets weaker. As Thucydides also observed, though, nations taking this gamble tend to be poor judges of what the consequences will be."
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 ...
They support israel to have a jews homeland and side by side clearing mess (you can say they are killing people....etc ..please acknowlede around 170 people died due to bus accident in some rural village etc...no one will notice ...when 170 people died in GAZA ,every one is jumping"
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
War has causulaity (Soldiers and Civilians at mass scale) ..But america do not have mass scale civilian causualities .........so America is not having WAR ...It is media hype. They are just doing some small time fights ......(everyone needs in there lifespan to show)...
At end Pakistan is moving forces across border becuase it is scared . Israel is planning to INVADE palestine becuase they are scared to death ...Thye do not knwo what OBAMA and better emerging Gulf countries will do with them ..
At end GOD SAVE AMERICA.
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 ...
They support israel to have a jews homeland and side by side clearing mess (you can say they are killing people....etc ..please acknowlede around 170 people died due to bus accident in some rural village etc...no one will notice ...when 170 people died in GAZA ,every one is jumping"
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
War has causulaity (Soldiers and Civilians at mass scale) ..But america do not have mass scale civilian causualities .........so America is not having WAR ...It is media hype. They are just doing some small time fights ......(everyone needs in there lifespan to show)...
At end Pakistan is moving forces across border becuase it is scared . Israel is planning to INVADE palestine becuase they are scared to death ...Thye do not knwo what OBAMA and better emerging Gulf countries will do with them ..
At end GOD SAVE AMERICA.
2010 adidas Originals Gazelle
gomirage
06-08 06:41 PM
Your common sense tells you to abandon your GC because it is taking too long? Then with your defeatist mentality, you should leave the country now. In case you didn't read a word of what I said, the interest you pay is tax deductible.
What is the difference if you had your GC or not? If you had it would you still be renting? The ONE and ONLY reason I would ever rent is if it was a rent stabilised apartment in a good location in Manhattan, or when I am saving up enough money to buy.
You are a genius. Actually it's been a while now since since I left and I am glad and had the defeatist mentality to build a better life for myself and my family elsewhere.
For a genius, you should better. Just because you are on this forum, doesn't mean you are in the US, lol.
I have been member of this community and like to discuss with ex fellow GC seekers. You don't know the difference between GC or not ? Let me explain it to you, genius. With a GC you know that you are legaly entitled to stay permanently, at least until you commit something to have it revoked. Without GC, when your time is up, you have to pack and leave. Get it ? or is it STILL too complicated for you, genius ?
Wonder how can someone suffer after GC and still doesn't know the difference.
What is the difference if you had your GC or not? If you had it would you still be renting? The ONE and ONLY reason I would ever rent is if it was a rent stabilised apartment in a good location in Manhattan, or when I am saving up enough money to buy.
You are a genius. Actually it's been a while now since since I left and I am glad and had the defeatist mentality to build a better life for myself and my family elsewhere.
For a genius, you should better. Just because you are on this forum, doesn't mean you are in the US, lol.
I have been member of this community and like to discuss with ex fellow GC seekers. You don't know the difference between GC or not ? Let me explain it to you, genius. With a GC you know that you are legaly entitled to stay permanently, at least until you commit something to have it revoked. Without GC, when your time is up, you have to pack and leave. Get it ? or is it STILL too complicated for you, genius ?
Wonder how can someone suffer after GC and still doesn't know the difference.
more...
GCwaitforever
07-15 07:06 AM
May be we should start an advisory service for H-1B immigrants on their rights, how to fight abusive employers etc ... Best way to go would be setting up a non-profit with initial discussions happening in a local community center hall (Church, Mosque, temple, public library, or even a local cafe). We could even recruit a kind-hearted lawyer on pro-bono basis. When we open chapters at every city where immigrant population is clustered, this will cover most of the immigrants.
We are wondering why IV is not getting enough members enrolling. Setting up this non-profit would be a step in brining activisism in EB immigrants and from then on, they will be readily participating in fighting for their rights. Then we would have a grassroot support organization. Any thoughts/comments, please let me know.
We are wondering why IV is not getting enough members enrolling. Setting up this non-profit would be a step in brining activisism in EB immigrants and from then on, they will be readily participating in fighting for their rights. Then we would have a grassroot support organization. Any thoughts/comments, please let me know.
hair adidas Originals by Originals
gotgc?
12-17 10:44 PM
It is true that 99.99% of Muslims are not terrorists. But 99.99% of World's hardcore terrorists are Muslims.
It is absolutely true...why is that all terrorists are muslims..something is wrong...
It is absolutely true...why is that all terrorists are muslims..something is wrong...
more...
sabudanawada
04-15 02:49 PM
Some common thinking patterns that immerge out of these conversations. Please understands that these are all "amoral" paradigms, nothing else, you can pick and choose any of these set of values and lead your life on it, the choice is upto you. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong, except in their own imagination.
1. Money cant buy happiness
2. Bigger home doesnt mean better life for kids.
3. Life in US is better than life in India
4. Life in India is better than life in US.
5. Our parents had more time for us than we do for our children
6. It is better to be content and happy than to be materialistic and unhappy.
7. Stability is more important than commiting a big chunk of your money.
8. Good neighborhoods is whats more important.
9. Renting is good for immigrants till they get their green cards.
10.Buying house in this market is stupid.
11. Buying house in this market is smart.
12. I already bought the house and loving it
13. Wait till they kick you out of the country, then tell me that you love your house. you know they sometimes make some stupid mistakes with your application and there is no telling whether you could be their victim even if you have cleanest case for GC.
i can go on, but come on guys, dont you get it? Who wins with these arguments. NOBODY. Do what you think is right for you and your family. as simple as that...
Cheers! :cool:
1. Money cant buy happiness
2. Bigger home doesnt mean better life for kids.
3. Life in US is better than life in India
4. Life in India is better than life in US.
5. Our parents had more time for us than we do for our children
6. It is better to be content and happy than to be materialistic and unhappy.
7. Stability is more important than commiting a big chunk of your money.
8. Good neighborhoods is whats more important.
9. Renting is good for immigrants till they get their green cards.
10.Buying house in this market is stupid.
11. Buying house in this market is smart.
12. I already bought the house and loving it
13. Wait till they kick you out of the country, then tell me that you love your house. you know they sometimes make some stupid mistakes with your application and there is no telling whether you could be their victim even if you have cleanest case for GC.
i can go on, but come on guys, dont you get it? Who wins with these arguments. NOBODY. Do what you think is right for you and your family. as simple as that...
Cheers! :cool:
hot Adidas Originals Ciero Mid
zxcvb
07-17 11:05 PM
Does any one knows the answer to this?
Thanks
Thanks
more...
house Adidas Originals 80s Archive
Macaca
05-11 05:34 PM
Catching Scent of Revolution, China Moves to Snip Jasmine (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world/asia/11jasmine.html) By ANDREW JACOBS and JONATHAN ANSFIELD | New York Times
Do not be lulled by its intoxicating fragrance or the dainty, starlike blossoms whose whiteness suggests innocence and purity. Jasmine, a stalwart of Chinese tea and the subject of a celebrated folk song often heard while on hold with provincial bureaucrats, is not what it seems.
Since Tunisian revolutionaries this year anointed their successful revolt against the country�s dictatorial president the �Jasmine Revolution,� this flowering cousin of the olive tree has been branded a nefarious change-agent by the skittish men who keep the Chinese Communist Party in power.
Beginning in February, when anonymous calls for a Chinese �Jasmine Revolution� began circulating on the Internet, the Chinese characters for jasmine have been intermittently blocked in text messages while videos of President Hu Jintao singing �Mo Li Hua,� a Qing dynasty paean to the flower, have been plucked from the Web. Local officials, fearful of the flower�s destabilizing potency, canceled this summer�s China International Jasmine Cultural Festival, said Wu Guangyan, manager of the Guangxi Jasmine Development and Investment Company.
Even if Chinese cities have been free from any whiff of revolutionary turmoil, the war on jasmine has not been without casualties, most notably the ever-expanding list of democracy advocates, bloggers and other would-be troublemakers who have been pre-emptively detained by public security agents. They include the artist provocateur Ai Weiwei, who remains in police custody after being seized at Beijing�s international airport last month.
Less well known are the tribulations endured by the tawny-skinned men and women who grow ornamental jasmine here in Daxing, a district on the rural fringe of the capital. They say prices have collapsed since March, when the police issued an open-ended jasmine ban at a number of retail and wholesale flower markets around Beijing.
Zhen Weizhong, 47, who tends 2,000 jasmine plants on about an acre of rented land here, said the knee-high potted variety was wholesaling at about 75 cents, one-third last year�s price. �Even if I could sell them, I would lose money on every plant,� he said, glancing forlornly at a mound of unsold bushes whose blossoms were beginning to fade. Asked if he knew about the so-called Jasmine Revolution and whether it had played a role in collapsing demand, Mr. Zhen shrugged. �I don�t know anything about politics,� he said. �I don�t have time to watch television.�
Much like the initial calls on the Internet for protesters to �stroll silently holding a jasmine flower,� the floral ban is shrouded in some mystery. The Beijing Public Security Bureau declined to answer questions about jasmine. But a number of cut flower and live-plant business owners said they had been either visited by the police in early March or given directives indicating that it had become contraband.
Several of those who run stalls in one large plant outlet, the Sunhe Beidong flower market, said the local police had called vendors to a meeting and forced them to sign pledges to not carry jasmine; one said she had been instructed to report to the authorities those even seeking to purchase jasmine and to jot down their license plate numbers. (She said she had yet to detect any subversives seeking to buy jasmine at her stall.)
Although some vendors were given vague explanations for the jasmine freeze � that the plant was �symbolic� of those people who wanted to sow rebellion � most people involved in the flower trade have been largely left in the dark about why they should behave with such vigilance, and some professed ignorance of the ban altogether. Thanks to a censored Internet, most Chinese have never heard of the protest calls in China, nor are they aware of the ensuing crackdown.
In the absence of concrete information, fantastic rumors have taken root. One wholesale flower vendor at the Jiuzhou Flower and Plant Trading Center in southern Beijing said he heard the ban had something to do with radiation contamination from Japan. A young woman hawking floral bouquets at Laitai, a large flower market near the United States Embassy, said she was told jasmine blossoms contained some unspecified poison that was killing people. �Perhaps you�d like some white roses instead?� she asked hopefully.
Wu Chuanzhen, 53, a farmer who tends eight greenhouses of jasmine on the outskirts of the city, said other growers had insisted that adherents of Falun Gong, the banned spiritual movement deemed an �evil cult� by the authorities, might use the flowers in their bid to overthrow the governing Communist Party. �I heard jasmine is the code word for the revolution,� she said. Her laughter suggested she thought such concerns were absurd.
Many sellers, however, were less than eager to discuss jasmine with a foreigner, particularly at the Sunhe Beidong market, where a policeman could be seen last month nosing around the bouquets. Most quickly steered the conversation to more promising topics. �You don�t want to buy jasmine. It�s just not trendy this year,� said one clerk at the Laitai market, pointing to pots of lavender and rosemary.
As is often the case in China, controls have a tendency to wilt in the face of mercantile pressures. After two months with little sign of jasmine at the markets, a few vanloads of the plants, their branches thick with blossoms, began to show up at wholesale centers last week. They were priced so low, the buyers could not resist. One retailer, who asked that only her surname, Cui, be printed, acknowledged that the original order had not been officially lifted but that the authorities had yet to interfere.
Another vendor waved away talk of revolution and broke into a rendition of �Mo Li Hua,� a version of which was played each time medals were presented during the 2008 Olympics in Beijing:
A beautiful jasmine flower,
A beautiful jasmine flower,
Perfumed blossoms fill the branch,
Fragrant and white for everyone�s delight.
Let me come and pick a blossom
To give to someone,
Jasmine flower, oh jasmine flower.
US lambasts Chinese repression of dissidents as 'trying to stop history' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-lambasts-chinese-repression-of-dissidents-as-trying-to-stop-history-2282122.html) By Clifford Coonan | Independent
Chinese Crackdown on Domestic Critics Extends to Writer Barred From Traveling (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/world/asia/10writer.html) By KEITH BRADSHER | New York Times
A Cardinal's Warning on China (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285221267394028.html) By MARY KISSEL | Wall Street Journal
China: A sharper focus (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/849f75dc-7b36-11e0-9b06-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1M2hLbDiL) By Jamil Anderlini and Kathrin Hille | Financial Times
Fire and Ice
Ai Weiwei�s cutting edge art, blogging, and sacrifice on behalf of freedom in China. (http://www.tnr.com/article/the-picture/88115/ai-weiwei-china-artist-arrested-moma-exhibit)
By Jed Perl | The New Republic
The Great Firewall of China (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/10/the-great-firewall-of-china/) The Washington Times Editorial
Anish Kapoor Dedicates Art Work to Ai Weiwei (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/11/anish-kapoor-dedicates-art-work-to-ai-weiwei/) By Margherita Stancati and Josh Chin | IndiaRealTime
A Tale of Nanjing Atrocities That Spares No Brutal Detail (http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/movies/city-of-life-and-death-from-lu-chuan-review.html) By MANOHLA DARGIS | New York Times
Do not be lulled by its intoxicating fragrance or the dainty, starlike blossoms whose whiteness suggests innocence and purity. Jasmine, a stalwart of Chinese tea and the subject of a celebrated folk song often heard while on hold with provincial bureaucrats, is not what it seems.
Since Tunisian revolutionaries this year anointed their successful revolt against the country�s dictatorial president the �Jasmine Revolution,� this flowering cousin of the olive tree has been branded a nefarious change-agent by the skittish men who keep the Chinese Communist Party in power.
Beginning in February, when anonymous calls for a Chinese �Jasmine Revolution� began circulating on the Internet, the Chinese characters for jasmine have been intermittently blocked in text messages while videos of President Hu Jintao singing �Mo Li Hua,� a Qing dynasty paean to the flower, have been plucked from the Web. Local officials, fearful of the flower�s destabilizing potency, canceled this summer�s China International Jasmine Cultural Festival, said Wu Guangyan, manager of the Guangxi Jasmine Development and Investment Company.
Even if Chinese cities have been free from any whiff of revolutionary turmoil, the war on jasmine has not been without casualties, most notably the ever-expanding list of democracy advocates, bloggers and other would-be troublemakers who have been pre-emptively detained by public security agents. They include the artist provocateur Ai Weiwei, who remains in police custody after being seized at Beijing�s international airport last month.
Less well known are the tribulations endured by the tawny-skinned men and women who grow ornamental jasmine here in Daxing, a district on the rural fringe of the capital. They say prices have collapsed since March, when the police issued an open-ended jasmine ban at a number of retail and wholesale flower markets around Beijing.
Zhen Weizhong, 47, who tends 2,000 jasmine plants on about an acre of rented land here, said the knee-high potted variety was wholesaling at about 75 cents, one-third last year�s price. �Even if I could sell them, I would lose money on every plant,� he said, glancing forlornly at a mound of unsold bushes whose blossoms were beginning to fade. Asked if he knew about the so-called Jasmine Revolution and whether it had played a role in collapsing demand, Mr. Zhen shrugged. �I don�t know anything about politics,� he said. �I don�t have time to watch television.�
Much like the initial calls on the Internet for protesters to �stroll silently holding a jasmine flower,� the floral ban is shrouded in some mystery. The Beijing Public Security Bureau declined to answer questions about jasmine. But a number of cut flower and live-plant business owners said they had been either visited by the police in early March or given directives indicating that it had become contraband.
Several of those who run stalls in one large plant outlet, the Sunhe Beidong flower market, said the local police had called vendors to a meeting and forced them to sign pledges to not carry jasmine; one said she had been instructed to report to the authorities those even seeking to purchase jasmine and to jot down their license plate numbers. (She said she had yet to detect any subversives seeking to buy jasmine at her stall.)
Although some vendors were given vague explanations for the jasmine freeze � that the plant was �symbolic� of those people who wanted to sow rebellion � most people involved in the flower trade have been largely left in the dark about why they should behave with such vigilance, and some professed ignorance of the ban altogether. Thanks to a censored Internet, most Chinese have never heard of the protest calls in China, nor are they aware of the ensuing crackdown.
In the absence of concrete information, fantastic rumors have taken root. One wholesale flower vendor at the Jiuzhou Flower and Plant Trading Center in southern Beijing said he heard the ban had something to do with radiation contamination from Japan. A young woman hawking floral bouquets at Laitai, a large flower market near the United States Embassy, said she was told jasmine blossoms contained some unspecified poison that was killing people. �Perhaps you�d like some white roses instead?� she asked hopefully.
Wu Chuanzhen, 53, a farmer who tends eight greenhouses of jasmine on the outskirts of the city, said other growers had insisted that adherents of Falun Gong, the banned spiritual movement deemed an �evil cult� by the authorities, might use the flowers in their bid to overthrow the governing Communist Party. �I heard jasmine is the code word for the revolution,� she said. Her laughter suggested she thought such concerns were absurd.
Many sellers, however, were less than eager to discuss jasmine with a foreigner, particularly at the Sunhe Beidong market, where a policeman could be seen last month nosing around the bouquets. Most quickly steered the conversation to more promising topics. �You don�t want to buy jasmine. It�s just not trendy this year,� said one clerk at the Laitai market, pointing to pots of lavender and rosemary.
As is often the case in China, controls have a tendency to wilt in the face of mercantile pressures. After two months with little sign of jasmine at the markets, a few vanloads of the plants, their branches thick with blossoms, began to show up at wholesale centers last week. They were priced so low, the buyers could not resist. One retailer, who asked that only her surname, Cui, be printed, acknowledged that the original order had not been officially lifted but that the authorities had yet to interfere.
Another vendor waved away talk of revolution and broke into a rendition of �Mo Li Hua,� a version of which was played each time medals were presented during the 2008 Olympics in Beijing:
A beautiful jasmine flower,
A beautiful jasmine flower,
Perfumed blossoms fill the branch,
Fragrant and white for everyone�s delight.
Let me come and pick a blossom
To give to someone,
Jasmine flower, oh jasmine flower.
US lambasts Chinese repression of dissidents as 'trying to stop history' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-lambasts-chinese-repression-of-dissidents-as-trying-to-stop-history-2282122.html) By Clifford Coonan | Independent
Chinese Crackdown on Domestic Critics Extends to Writer Barred From Traveling (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/world/asia/10writer.html) By KEITH BRADSHER | New York Times
A Cardinal's Warning on China (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285221267394028.html) By MARY KISSEL | Wall Street Journal
China: A sharper focus (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/849f75dc-7b36-11e0-9b06-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1M2hLbDiL) By Jamil Anderlini and Kathrin Hille | Financial Times
Fire and Ice
Ai Weiwei�s cutting edge art, blogging, and sacrifice on behalf of freedom in China. (http://www.tnr.com/article/the-picture/88115/ai-weiwei-china-artist-arrested-moma-exhibit)
By Jed Perl | The New Republic
The Great Firewall of China (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/10/the-great-firewall-of-china/) The Washington Times Editorial
Anish Kapoor Dedicates Art Work to Ai Weiwei (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/11/anish-kapoor-dedicates-art-work-to-ai-weiwei/) By Margherita Stancati and Josh Chin | IndiaRealTime
A Tale of Nanjing Atrocities That Spares No Brutal Detail (http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/movies/city-of-life-and-death-from-lu-chuan-review.html) By MANOHLA DARGIS | New York Times
tattoo an adidas Originals logo
samrat_bhargava_vihari
02-02 04:59 PM
Lou knows it all; he knows it is the L-1 visa holders and not the H1B visa holders. But his viewers know what H1b is and have never heard of L1. So it helps him to cite H1B. He has shown "figures with 0 tax returns" on his show at times; they are from ppl who are now on H1B but were on L-1 in the past when they submitted the 0-tax returns.
???? How do you know that L-1 visa holders will not pay tax ?
???? How do you know that L-1 visa holders will not pay tax ?
more...
pictures Adidas Originals Adi Trefoil
sanjaymk
08-05 05:34 PM
no joke list is complete without little johnny's joke..here is one. This is the only decent one that I found which will not get me into trouble here..
Little Johnny's teacher asks, "George Washington not only chopped down his father's Cherry tree, but also admitted doing it. Do any of you know why his father didn't punish him?"
Little Johnny replies, "Because George was the one holding the axe?
Little Johnny's teacher asks, "George Washington not only chopped down his father's Cherry tree, but also admitted doing it. Do any of you know why his father didn't punish him?"
Little Johnny replies, "Because George was the one holding the axe?
dresses Adidas Originals
Macaca
02-20 10:20 AM
Some paras from A Few Degrees of Separation From Hillary Clinton's Top Adviser (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900972.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/), Please send e-mail tokstreet@washpost.com
Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Enough connections for you?
Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.
The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.
To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).
WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).
The range of interests represented by these people is a staggering list of corporate America's who's who, with Penn himself a longtime adviser to Microsoft.
"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.
Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Enough connections for you?
Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.
The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.
To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).
WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).
The range of interests represented by these people is a staggering list of corporate America's who's who, with Penn himself a longtime adviser to Microsoft.
"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.
more...
makeup adidas originals wallpaper.
i4u
09-20 08:11 AM
How many believe that the vote on Tuesday will allow for the inclusion of Dream Act in the Defense Authorization Bill?
How many believe that if it does get the votes on Tuesday, it will be passed on Wed or Thursday as some claim it?
How many believe that if it does get the votes on Tuesday, it will be passed on Wed or Thursday as some claim it?
girlfriend adidas Originals Fall/Winter
dealsnet
01-08 01:15 PM
Read their explanation, Rayaan, regugee_new are upset about the Mumbai tread. It means what??. Need a teacher or preacher to interpret it??
We can understand what they mean.
dealsnet,
I am just quite spectator , but could not resist to respond you on this ... I don't see any "Support" for terrorist or Mumbai attacks posted by Rayyan.
PLEASE Stop making assumptions,Dude.
As Bfadila said, you have serious language comprehension issues....
We can understand what they mean.
dealsnet,
I am just quite spectator , but could not resist to respond you on this ... I don't see any "Support" for terrorist or Mumbai attacks posted by Rayyan.
PLEASE Stop making assumptions,Dude.
As Bfadila said, you have serious language comprehension issues....
hairstyles ADIDAS ORIGINALS AFRICA ANKLE
dixie
11-14 10:01 PM
His news telecast was an inspirational force for numbersusa who were behind killing SKIL.
As far as I know, almost every telecast of his has some representative of FAIR, numbersUSA or some other crony organisation like the programmers guild as his guest. And he presents their "research" as if they are winners of the nobel prize in economics.
And who told you SKIL is killed or that numbersUSA killed it ? In fact they are quaking in their boots at the thought of congress passing some large scale immigration relief measure like SKIL during the lame duck session. Take a look at their site for the latest "action item". Sad part is many of their friends in congress have either lost their job or are busy licking their wounds.
As far as I know, almost every telecast of his has some representative of FAIR, numbersUSA or some other crony organisation like the programmers guild as his guest. And he presents their "research" as if they are winners of the nobel prize in economics.
And who told you SKIL is killed or that numbersUSA killed it ? In fact they are quaking in their boots at the thought of congress passing some large scale immigration relief measure like SKIL during the lame duck session. Take a look at their site for the latest "action item". Sad part is many of their friends in congress have either lost their job or are busy licking their wounds.
lfwf
08-06 04:19 PM
If you go strictly by that, then allocating unused EB1 visa numbers to EB2 is also wrong. EB1 visas are meant for an entirely different skill set and job.
EB2 guys and EB3 guys are at a disadvantage depending on which way you look at it. I guess capturing previous years� unused visa numbers is the only way to go then�
no those are unused numbers and are "physcially ported" to Eb2 before they can be used, and then to Eb3. the applicant does not jump to the higher category!!!
EB2 guys and EB3 guys are at a disadvantage depending on which way you look at it. I guess capturing previous years� unused visa numbers is the only way to go then�
no those are unused numbers and are "physcially ported" to Eb2 before they can be used, and then to Eb3. the applicant does not jump to the higher category!!!
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
No comments:
Post a Comment