Macaca
05-01 06:10 PM
Integrating immigrants (http://tribune.com.pk/story/160476/integrating-immigrants/) By Urvashi Butalia | The Express Tribune
A few days ago, quite by chance, I happened to find myself at lunch with a member of the British political establishment. For a while, the conversation remained desultory and ranged over the usual subjects � India, economic growth, food, Indian business in Britain and so on. And then, suddenly, things began to heat up. We found ourselves talking about immigrant communities in the West. What began as a general discussion on whether and how immigrant communities �integrate� into the culture of the adopted country, turned specifically to discussing Indians and Pakistanis in Britain.
Why was it, our host asked, that there was such a strong attachment to the home culture and, in many cases, such a resistance to integrating. In many places, he pointed out, immigrants even refused to learn the language of their adoptive country, in this case English, and this then meant that they could not move into the mainstream economic sphere, and they thus remained economically backward. He pointed to many stories he had heard, especially of Pakistanis, who could go through 16 years of schooling in Britain without learning English, or even showing a desire to learn it. And what mystified him even more was that these were not first generation immigrants who still carried the memory of the homeland with them, these were children born and raised in Britain, and for them there was no such memory to hold on to.
The politician�s concern was quite genuine. How do you deal with your political constituencies if one set of them always elects to stay �outside�? But I�m not sure the reasons he gave � he pinpointed only the reluctance to learn the language � are adequate to explain what is increasingly becoming a problem in diasporic communities. For too long, migration, � or rather voluntary migration, when people go out in search of jobs or better lives � has been looked upon somewhat askance, especially if it is people from the erstwhile Third World countries moving to the so-called developed world. It�s almost as if, in seeking to improve their lives by going elsewhere, these people are doing something not quite right.
This attitude towards immigrants holds both for the home country and the adoptive one � in one you are seen as a deserter and in the other as, at best, an unwelcome guest. So the onus of making yourself feel at home, of acquiring a new identity, of �integrating�, is put upon the immigrant. Whatever services the state provides seem almost to be given reluctantly, and are often accompanied by a discourse � not a state discourse but an independent one, which makes it that much more difficult to address � of resentment, anger, prejudice and, sometimes, just sheer envy. None of this encourages immigrants to try and integrate, rather it pushes them in the opposite direction.
And then, if there�s already a community in existence, as there is virtually everywhere in England and America, you tend to remain within it, not seeking to enter a world that you feel is hostile to you. And you have to be driven to the wall to protest because protest means mobilisation, it means numbers, it means making yourself vulnerable, it means tackling the strength of an increasingly coercive state. Small wonder then, that most immigrant communities duck their heads and carry on doing their own thing.
It isn�t only their relationship with the adoptive country that is problematic, but, especially for first generation immigrants, it�s very important to keep the connection with home, and to ensure that subsequent generations keep it too. This, as has often been seen, results in a somewhat static idea of what things are like at �home� and has also often led to a more dangerous phenomenon; the tacit support and the very real funding provided by diasporic communities to right-wing movements at home � there�s plenty of evidence of this and I don�t need to go into it here.
But let me come back to our politician and his concerns. Why should South Asian immigrant communities in Britain be reluctant to learn English? There�s little doubt today that the world over, English has become the language of social mobility, and there�s a widespread desire to learn it. At home, in both our countries, as we know, institutes offering to teach English have sprung up everywhere and they are always fully subscribed. So what is it that holds Indians and Pakistanis in Britain back from this?
My own sense is that we�re asking the wrong questions here. The question isn�t about whether people wish to learn English or not. Rather, it is much more about how immigrant communities are made to feel at home, about their rights and privileges, about their sense of self. One might just as well ask: What has the state done to help such communities integrate? Have Diwali and Eid for example, become part of the national calendar? Are there community centres and pubs and coffee places that are self-consciously and deliberately multicultural and that encourage people to sit together and talk? Have governments thought of new and innovative ways of ensuring that their �other� citizens have the same rights and privileges as their mainstream citizens, and that they know these rights belong to them?
Dealing with difference isn�t always easy. Where do you draw the line? How far do you encourage and sustain difference and how far do you try to homogenise things? As the French move to ban the veil has shown, coercion is no answer. People have to be convinced of the logic and reason for change, they have to feel it works for them. How would it be if we insisted that foreign men in our countries had to wear either the dhoti or the awami suit? Much better, perhaps, to engage people in dialogue, to sit down and talk, and to find a solution that works for everyone. I�m not sure what message our politician took back to England with him, but it certainly wasn�t one that blamed communities for not integrating, instead it was one that looked at the question of integration as one from which both sides, if one can say that, gained.
A few days ago, quite by chance, I happened to find myself at lunch with a member of the British political establishment. For a while, the conversation remained desultory and ranged over the usual subjects � India, economic growth, food, Indian business in Britain and so on. And then, suddenly, things began to heat up. We found ourselves talking about immigrant communities in the West. What began as a general discussion on whether and how immigrant communities �integrate� into the culture of the adopted country, turned specifically to discussing Indians and Pakistanis in Britain.
Why was it, our host asked, that there was such a strong attachment to the home culture and, in many cases, such a resistance to integrating. In many places, he pointed out, immigrants even refused to learn the language of their adoptive country, in this case English, and this then meant that they could not move into the mainstream economic sphere, and they thus remained economically backward. He pointed to many stories he had heard, especially of Pakistanis, who could go through 16 years of schooling in Britain without learning English, or even showing a desire to learn it. And what mystified him even more was that these were not first generation immigrants who still carried the memory of the homeland with them, these were children born and raised in Britain, and for them there was no such memory to hold on to.
The politician�s concern was quite genuine. How do you deal with your political constituencies if one set of them always elects to stay �outside�? But I�m not sure the reasons he gave � he pinpointed only the reluctance to learn the language � are adequate to explain what is increasingly becoming a problem in diasporic communities. For too long, migration, � or rather voluntary migration, when people go out in search of jobs or better lives � has been looked upon somewhat askance, especially if it is people from the erstwhile Third World countries moving to the so-called developed world. It�s almost as if, in seeking to improve their lives by going elsewhere, these people are doing something not quite right.
This attitude towards immigrants holds both for the home country and the adoptive one � in one you are seen as a deserter and in the other as, at best, an unwelcome guest. So the onus of making yourself feel at home, of acquiring a new identity, of �integrating�, is put upon the immigrant. Whatever services the state provides seem almost to be given reluctantly, and are often accompanied by a discourse � not a state discourse but an independent one, which makes it that much more difficult to address � of resentment, anger, prejudice and, sometimes, just sheer envy. None of this encourages immigrants to try and integrate, rather it pushes them in the opposite direction.
And then, if there�s already a community in existence, as there is virtually everywhere in England and America, you tend to remain within it, not seeking to enter a world that you feel is hostile to you. And you have to be driven to the wall to protest because protest means mobilisation, it means numbers, it means making yourself vulnerable, it means tackling the strength of an increasingly coercive state. Small wonder then, that most immigrant communities duck their heads and carry on doing their own thing.
It isn�t only their relationship with the adoptive country that is problematic, but, especially for first generation immigrants, it�s very important to keep the connection with home, and to ensure that subsequent generations keep it too. This, as has often been seen, results in a somewhat static idea of what things are like at �home� and has also often led to a more dangerous phenomenon; the tacit support and the very real funding provided by diasporic communities to right-wing movements at home � there�s plenty of evidence of this and I don�t need to go into it here.
But let me come back to our politician and his concerns. Why should South Asian immigrant communities in Britain be reluctant to learn English? There�s little doubt today that the world over, English has become the language of social mobility, and there�s a widespread desire to learn it. At home, in both our countries, as we know, institutes offering to teach English have sprung up everywhere and they are always fully subscribed. So what is it that holds Indians and Pakistanis in Britain back from this?
My own sense is that we�re asking the wrong questions here. The question isn�t about whether people wish to learn English or not. Rather, it is much more about how immigrant communities are made to feel at home, about their rights and privileges, about their sense of self. One might just as well ask: What has the state done to help such communities integrate? Have Diwali and Eid for example, become part of the national calendar? Are there community centres and pubs and coffee places that are self-consciously and deliberately multicultural and that encourage people to sit together and talk? Have governments thought of new and innovative ways of ensuring that their �other� citizens have the same rights and privileges as their mainstream citizens, and that they know these rights belong to them?
Dealing with difference isn�t always easy. Where do you draw the line? How far do you encourage and sustain difference and how far do you try to homogenise things? As the French move to ban the veil has shown, coercion is no answer. People have to be convinced of the logic and reason for change, they have to feel it works for them. How would it be if we insisted that foreign men in our countries had to wear either the dhoti or the awami suit? Much better, perhaps, to engage people in dialogue, to sit down and talk, and to find a solution that works for everyone. I�m not sure what message our politician took back to England with him, but it certainly wasn�t one that blamed communities for not integrating, instead it was one that looked at the question of integration as one from which both sides, if one can say that, gained.
wallpaper Artist David Cooke
pappu
03-25 11:58 PM
I am trying to upload a pdf file but keep getting error message.
temporaryjob140denial.pdf:
Upload of file failed.
It is way below the size limit posted for pdf file.
any ideas?
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/temp/forum_attach/temporaryjob140denial.pdf
temporaryjob140denial.pdf:
Upload of file failed.
It is way below the size limit posted for pdf file.
any ideas?
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/temp/forum_attach/temporaryjob140denial.pdf
Macaca
02-27 08:14 AM
A Republican Purge on K? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601142_2.html)
John Feehery has left the Motion Picture Association of America to start his own lobbying firm, the Feehery Group. Feehery, 43, joined the movie lobby with great fanfare in 2005 to help silence sotto voce attacks by congressional Republicans, then in the majority, on the group's chief executive, former congressman Dan Glickman (D-Kan.), and on left-leaning Hollywood. Feehery had been the spokesman for then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and a veteran GOP leadership aide.
But last month, the MPAA named Seth Oster, a Democrat, as executive vice president for communications, in effect taking part of Feehery's portfolio. My colleague at washingtonpost.com, Mary Ann Akers, reports that lobbyists worry that the move might presage a citywide purge of Republicans. But Feehery professes no bitterness. "It was a good time for me to start my own business," he said. "It gives me a greater range to do things I want to do." The MPAA will be one of his first clients, he added.
John Feehery has left the Motion Picture Association of America to start his own lobbying firm, the Feehery Group. Feehery, 43, joined the movie lobby with great fanfare in 2005 to help silence sotto voce attacks by congressional Republicans, then in the majority, on the group's chief executive, former congressman Dan Glickman (D-Kan.), and on left-leaning Hollywood. Feehery had been the spokesman for then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and a veteran GOP leadership aide.
But last month, the MPAA named Seth Oster, a Democrat, as executive vice president for communications, in effect taking part of Feehery's portfolio. My colleague at washingtonpost.com, Mary Ann Akers, reports that lobbyists worry that the move might presage a citywide purge of Republicans. But Feehery professes no bitterness. "It was a good time for me to start my own business," he said. "It gives me a greater range to do things I want to do." The MPAA will be one of his first clients, he added.
2011 for David Cooke - PHOTO
dba9ioracle
08-05 01:42 PM
With all due respect, I totaly disagree with original poster. probably, he needs to know more about immigration rules..
more...
smisachu
12-28 08:22 PM
As I have said in my post, the pak civilian govt is not at fault; at least now. The terrorists have over run Pakistan and on a long term basis it is not only bad for India but for Pakistan itself. I am pretty sure you realize it now.
The techonology needed to deliver and set off a nuke is not something that could be purchased and used out of the box, Pak does not have the full capability even according to paks own accounts. Now let us neglect this point, it will be highly unlikely that Pak will use a nuke even if it could. The consiquences of nuking in the modren world is dire and no one in Pak or India have the balls to do something like that. Pak depends on US funding heavily and it cannot afford to cut off such a source by using nukes.
Finally- my question to you is why dosent Pak simply kill all these crazy SOB's and hand over the terrorists to India so they can hang them. We all know where these guys are so let's not pretend that Pak is "searching" for them. So instead of defending terrorism I really want see Pakistanis stand up and tell their government to either fry the damn terrorists or be fryed!! You are feeling the pinch of supporting religious fanatics now, this is the time to clense your self socially.
Since more than a few hours have past since this thread was started, I can think that we can sleep in peace knowing that there won't be a war.
Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.
Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.
What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.
War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.
The techonology needed to deliver and set off a nuke is not something that could be purchased and used out of the box, Pak does not have the full capability even according to paks own accounts. Now let us neglect this point, it will be highly unlikely that Pak will use a nuke even if it could. The consiquences of nuking in the modren world is dire and no one in Pak or India have the balls to do something like that. Pak depends on US funding heavily and it cannot afford to cut off such a source by using nukes.
Finally- my question to you is why dosent Pak simply kill all these crazy SOB's and hand over the terrorists to India so they can hang them. We all know where these guys are so let's not pretend that Pak is "searching" for them. So instead of defending terrorism I really want see Pakistanis stand up and tell their government to either fry the damn terrorists or be fryed!! You are feeling the pinch of supporting religious fanatics now, this is the time to clense your self socially.
Since more than a few hours have past since this thread was started, I can think that we can sleep in peace knowing that there won't be a war.
Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.
Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.
What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.
War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
more...
gc28262
12-22 05:43 PM
On the other hand if some one is attacking me in my home and/or hurting my family or freinds, I have full rights to defend and call for justice to prosecute the attacker, in this case declaring Pakistan a terrorist country.
So you don't consider Kashmir as part of your home. Majority of Indians think Kashmir is part of India.
Where does the boundary of your little world end? I know the boundary starts with you. How big is that world ?
It is so enlightening to learn that you care for people other than yourself.
So you don't consider Kashmir as part of your home. Majority of Indians think Kashmir is part of India.
Where does the boundary of your little world end? I know the boundary starts with you. How big is that world ?
It is so enlightening to learn that you care for people other than yourself.
2010 director is David Cooke.
riva2005
04-09 11:57 AM
Thx for saying that. My boss who is a professor in a research university at least thinks that way, and also believes that I am a leader (FYI riva2005). Frankly, if you are not displacing an American, and there is legal proof of that, there is no reason to worry. Also, mjrajatish: yes, it will be difficult to move in 2 weeks. Same holds for me too because they have to prove that Iam not displacing another American in the new workplace. I see nothing wrong in that.
Great. Maybe you should put out an ad in the newspaper. Or maybe you should say in your EB1 petition "My boss believes that I am a leader". That ought to do it. I am sure USCIS will approve your EB1 right away when they see that your boss believes that you are a leader.
My boss too believes many things. He believes that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Maybe I should tell my parents about what my Boss believes. That would make them proud.
Seriously rimzhim, you are thinking that only you and a handful of others with Ph.Ds are providing service to this country and others like "Consultants" are just getting a free ride. I am not a consultant myself, but I do see really smart and capable professionals doing consulting. You need to get out of your lab more. There are plenty of consultants in IBM, Accenture etc. who are some of the best brains in IT and management and who are either on H1B or used to be on H1B.
Quite contrary, the best brains actually prefer consulting beacuse there is more money to be made in it. Many H1Bs doing fulltime jobs start consulting when they get greencards because consulting pays more.
If you are really a scientist, you should be doing something good with your time rather than trolling the posts of EB3 losers like myself.
Go shake some test-tubes or something. Or go to your boss's office and he will tell you how great you are.
Great. Maybe you should put out an ad in the newspaper. Or maybe you should say in your EB1 petition "My boss believes that I am a leader". That ought to do it. I am sure USCIS will approve your EB1 right away when they see that your boss believes that you are a leader.
My boss too believes many things. He believes that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Maybe I should tell my parents about what my Boss believes. That would make them proud.
Seriously rimzhim, you are thinking that only you and a handful of others with Ph.Ds are providing service to this country and others like "Consultants" are just getting a free ride. I am not a consultant myself, but I do see really smart and capable professionals doing consulting. You need to get out of your lab more. There are plenty of consultants in IBM, Accenture etc. who are some of the best brains in IT and management and who are either on H1B or used to be on H1B.
Quite contrary, the best brains actually prefer consulting beacuse there is more money to be made in it. Many H1Bs doing fulltime jobs start consulting when they get greencards because consulting pays more.
If you are really a scientist, you should be doing something good with your time rather than trolling the posts of EB3 losers like myself.
Go shake some test-tubes or something. Or go to your boss's office and he will tell you how great you are.
more...
abracadabra102
07-14 08:47 PM
Oh yes...today there are people who applied in early 2001(EB2-RIR) ...and waited untill end of 01 to get a NOD from DOL and then re-applied again in mid of 02 without retaining thier original PD of 01(EB3 Non RIR)..do you know?..most of you are from PERM that's why you are finding it odd ..!..DOL while sending back these cases did not let them retain thier PD's..
we were qualified to apply in eb-2 and RIR and the economy and the WTC attacks made things worse..
:)
So what you are saying is - some EB2 RIR petitions were rejected by DOL and employers re-applied under regular supervised recruitment under EB3.
How does this imply that "DOL advised some of us to file under EB3?"
we were qualified to apply in eb-2 and RIR and the economy and the WTC attacks made things worse..
:)
So what you are saying is - some EB2 RIR petitions were rejected by DOL and employers re-applied under regular supervised recruitment under EB3.
How does this imply that "DOL advised some of us to file under EB3?"
hair david cooke ceramics. ceramics
nojoke
04-21 04:19 PM
The trillion-dollar mortgage time bomb
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/21/news/economy/fannie_freddie/index.htm?section=money_mostpopular
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/21/news/economy/fannie_freddie/index.htm?section=money_mostpopular
more...
rvr_jcop
03-26 09:34 PM
Stating the obvious: Your attorney was a knucklehead?
USCIS hasn't gone to zero tolerance on 140/485 so it is doubtful that you will get such a query.
Are you still on H-1b?
If you want to bullet proof yourself then do an eb2 labor now; port the priority date and then inter-file the 485 or file new 485 on eb2 140 which would have been done appropriately. You can get your greencard dependency on the new 140 without losing much in terms of waiting and getting peace of mind.
Thanks UN, I am not in that situation, I was just trying to clarify because I see so many ambiguous explanations related to work location. And By the way, I am on EAD.
USCIS hasn't gone to zero tolerance on 140/485 so it is doubtful that you will get such a query.
Are you still on H-1b?
If you want to bullet proof yourself then do an eb2 labor now; port the priority date and then inter-file the 485 or file new 485 on eb2 140 which would have been done appropriately. You can get your greencard dependency on the new 140 without losing much in terms of waiting and getting peace of mind.
Thanks UN, I am not in that situation, I was just trying to clarify because I see so many ambiguous explanations related to work location. And By the way, I am on EAD.
hot wallpaper David Cooke / Jeremy
ajm
08-05 10:44 AM
A random number generator is like sex:
When its good, it's wonderful,
And when its bad, it's still pretty good.
When its good, it's wonderful,
And when its bad, it's still pretty good.
more...
house said David Cooke,
Canadianindian
09-30 04:42 PM
I like Obama's opinion and his enthusiam. I would support him financially and in fact campaign and vote for him.
However, I am not sure if he understand the plight of Legal immigrants who have suffered for years with no relief in sight. We are law abiding people, but have to suffer tremendously. I am not sure if Obama is aware of our plight.
I am afraid if Obama wins the election, our chances of getting the GC will diminish as the CIR will not get his support to benefit the EB immigrants.
However, I am not sure if he understand the plight of Legal immigrants who have suffered for years with no relief in sight. We are law abiding people, but have to suffer tremendously. I am not sure if Obama is aware of our plight.
I am afraid if Obama wins the election, our chances of getting the GC will diminish as the CIR will not get his support to benefit the EB immigrants.
tattoo Artist David Cooke Gibson
hetalvn
09-19 05:04 PM
hi
they are taking social security, medicare taxes. while we are not getting any benefit out of it. they must stop taking social. they are taking this taxes based on that they will give us permanent status. now they have delayed process near to impossible for EB-3.
Intent of social security and medicare is to support social security benefits, but when they are not granting any of this benefit they should stop taking it from us or should make green card processing faster.
they should clarify this situation since they are taking money from us.
hetal shah
hetalvn@yahoo.com
they are taking social security, medicare taxes. while we are not getting any benefit out of it. they must stop taking social. they are taking this taxes based on that they will give us permanent status. now they have delayed process near to impossible for EB-3.
Intent of social security and medicare is to support social security benefits, but when they are not granting any of this benefit they should stop taking it from us or should make green card processing faster.
they should clarify this situation since they are taking money from us.
hetal shah
hetalvn@yahoo.com
more...
pictures david cooke ceramics.
alisa
12-27 02:09 AM
The world is more worried about Militants getting their hands on Nukes and has some confidence in India's caution. Madeline Albright recently said pakistan is like a migraine for the world. How many times we have seen stories where leaders after leader, strategists after strategists express concerns that Militants may get the nuke trigger.
I believe the world has a stake in neutralizing Pak's Nukes. Do you believe the Nukes are partially controlled by US at present? Or is it Zardari who has the complete control?
I am ambivalent about eliminating Pakistan's nuclear program. On the one hand, you are right that nukes in the hands of militants is a scary scenario. (Ironically, you increase the probability of the nukes falling into wrong hands by having a destabilizing war between Pakistan and India.)
But then equally scary is a defenseless Pakistan against India. Atleast, thats our perception.
I don't know who all controls the nukes. The army is certainly one part of it.
I believe the world has a stake in neutralizing Pak's Nukes. Do you believe the Nukes are partially controlled by US at present? Or is it Zardari who has the complete control?
I am ambivalent about eliminating Pakistan's nuclear program. On the one hand, you are right that nukes in the hands of militants is a scary scenario. (Ironically, you increase the probability of the nukes falling into wrong hands by having a destabilizing war between Pakistan and India.)
But then equally scary is a defenseless Pakistan against India. Atleast, thats our perception.
I don't know who all controls the nukes. The army is certainly one part of it.
dresses What show was David Cooke from
NKR
03-25 04:11 PM
not as easy as you say.
when you actually sell - you need to get it cleaned - empty and it stays on th block for sometime. about parents - your remark again would be different for different people.
would you be able to care for yr parents more if you are renting or if you own a house with big bills ?? with renting, you can leave at a day or 2 days notice !! with house - not so easy ! . with renting you can probably stay there for a longer time - if u have a house maybe not. This is another big reason I chose to rent even though someone in India is taking care of the elders. GC matters here too - maybe u can take longer vacations if u have GC and a house. but on EAD --renting seems to be the way :-).
as for kids - till the age of 5 - 6, apt and house does not really make much difference for kids ..they just need a place to jump / spoil walls / have friends and play in park / school.
ofcourse the foreclosures and firesale deals may change things - hey if you can get a house for half its cost and if you have the guts / courage to go through the whole thing ..then why not. people need to be careful too ..if people are still staying in the house ...it is a nightmare to remove them...bank repos or thru agents would be safer
Nobody said it is easy mate. If you are paranoid and want to be safe and prepare for the worst case (like getting fired or your 485 getting rejected) then don�t buy a house. It is a long haul and no one knows when his/her PD would become current. By the time one gets GC, the kids would have grown up and missed their childhood. Read my previous 3 posts. My suggestion was for the person who started this thread and for his situation only. I know each and every person�s situation is different. Like I said if I was in CA, probably I would be renting too.
when you actually sell - you need to get it cleaned - empty and it stays on th block for sometime. about parents - your remark again would be different for different people.
would you be able to care for yr parents more if you are renting or if you own a house with big bills ?? with renting, you can leave at a day or 2 days notice !! with house - not so easy ! . with renting you can probably stay there for a longer time - if u have a house maybe not. This is another big reason I chose to rent even though someone in India is taking care of the elders. GC matters here too - maybe u can take longer vacations if u have GC and a house. but on EAD --renting seems to be the way :-).
as for kids - till the age of 5 - 6, apt and house does not really make much difference for kids ..they just need a place to jump / spoil walls / have friends and play in park / school.
ofcourse the foreclosures and firesale deals may change things - hey if you can get a house for half its cost and if you have the guts / courage to go through the whole thing ..then why not. people need to be careful too ..if people are still staying in the house ...it is a nightmare to remove them...bank repos or thru agents would be safer
Nobody said it is easy mate. If you are paranoid and want to be safe and prepare for the worst case (like getting fired or your 485 getting rejected) then don�t buy a house. It is a long haul and no one knows when his/her PD would become current. By the time one gets GC, the kids would have grown up and missed their childhood. Read my previous 3 posts. My suggestion was for the person who started this thread and for his situation only. I know each and every person�s situation is different. Like I said if I was in CA, probably I would be renting too.
more...
makeup david cooke ceramics.
puddonhead
06-05 12:42 PM
Sorry but no matter how you spin it, owning a home is better than renting. Renting is not smart. period. your money is gone every month. You are not getting that money back.
When you own a home, the money goes towards a mortgage, and although most of it goes to interest at first, all interest paid is tax deductible which is a huge chunk of change every year. I get more money back as an owner than a renter and in the long run I save more AND own the home.
30 year renter vs 30 year home owner? That is not rocket science.
I doubt it is as clear cut as you make it to be. Rent vs. buy has two components in each option - the monthly cost and the long term saving/investment. Let me take the example of the apartment I live in. It would cost about 360k (I am not considering the closing cost, the cost to buy new appliances and so on when you move in etc) if we were to buy it as a condo in the market. We rent it for $1300.
Buy:
Monthly Cost:
Interest (very simplistic calculation): 5% on 180k on average over 30 years. i.e. $750 per month. After Tax deduction cost ~$700 (you lose on standard deduction if you take property tax deduction - so effective saving is wayyy lower than the marginal tax rate).
Property Tax: $400 per month.
Maintenance/depreciation of appliances: assume $200 per month (easily could be more).
Total: 1300.
Long term investment: $360k at 3% per annum (long term housing price increase trend).
You pay for this saving with leverage and $1000 amortization every month for the loan principal.
Loss of flexibility/Risk : Not sure how to quantify.
Rent:
Monthly cost = $1300.
Long Term Saving (assuming you put the same $1000 every month in a normal high yeild savings account - a Reward Checking maybe) - you will get a risk free 5%.
So in this case you are paying the same monthly cost for house purchase vs rent. but you are losing out on the additional 2% per month in investment return.
Plus - buying gets you into a lot riskier position.
I have seen the proponents of buying fails to take a couple of factors into account:
1. Real Estate, historically, is not a good investment. It is even worse than the best savings accounts available. And you could easily save your monthly amortization in better savings vehicles.
2. Tax deduction from interest means you lose on standard deduction. In the above example - a family of 3 with 1 earner will have NO saving from housing tax deduction. They would be better off using the standard deduction. If there are 2 earners - they could try to work around this by filing separately and one taking deduction for housing interest and the other taking the standard deduction. But even that will probably not save you any money since many other tax rates are stacked up against single filers.
When you own a home, the money goes towards a mortgage, and although most of it goes to interest at first, all interest paid is tax deductible which is a huge chunk of change every year. I get more money back as an owner than a renter and in the long run I save more AND own the home.
30 year renter vs 30 year home owner? That is not rocket science.
I doubt it is as clear cut as you make it to be. Rent vs. buy has two components in each option - the monthly cost and the long term saving/investment. Let me take the example of the apartment I live in. It would cost about 360k (I am not considering the closing cost, the cost to buy new appliances and so on when you move in etc) if we were to buy it as a condo in the market. We rent it for $1300.
Buy:
Monthly Cost:
Interest (very simplistic calculation): 5% on 180k on average over 30 years. i.e. $750 per month. After Tax deduction cost ~$700 (you lose on standard deduction if you take property tax deduction - so effective saving is wayyy lower than the marginal tax rate).
Property Tax: $400 per month.
Maintenance/depreciation of appliances: assume $200 per month (easily could be more).
Total: 1300.
Long term investment: $360k at 3% per annum (long term housing price increase trend).
You pay for this saving with leverage and $1000 amortization every month for the loan principal.
Loss of flexibility/Risk : Not sure how to quantify.
Rent:
Monthly cost = $1300.
Long Term Saving (assuming you put the same $1000 every month in a normal high yeild savings account - a Reward Checking maybe) - you will get a risk free 5%.
So in this case you are paying the same monthly cost for house purchase vs rent. but you are losing out on the additional 2% per month in investment return.
Plus - buying gets you into a lot riskier position.
I have seen the proponents of buying fails to take a couple of factors into account:
1. Real Estate, historically, is not a good investment. It is even worse than the best savings accounts available. And you could easily save your monthly amortization in better savings vehicles.
2. Tax deduction from interest means you lose on standard deduction. In the above example - a family of 3 with 1 earner will have NO saving from housing tax deduction. They would be better off using the standard deduction. If there are 2 earners - they could try to work around this by filing separately and one taking deduction for housing interest and the other taking the standard deduction. But even that will probably not save you any money since many other tax rates are stacked up against single filers.
girlfriend 2010 Hosted by David Cooke at
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.
hairstyles DAVID COOKE .
nixstor
08-10 07:55 PM
Guys,
Did any one watch Lou this evening? I switched on the TV and I saw H1B visa on the back ground and Lou was just done thanking a guy for being on the network. What was that about?
Did any one watch Lou this evening? I switched on the TV and I saw H1B visa on the back ground and Lou was just done thanking a guy for being on the network. What was that about?
Macaca
02-24 07:33 PM
Indian techie slams CNN Lou Dobbs (http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/10-28a-04.asp)!, N. Sivakumar, October 28, 2004
In a book titled "Dude, did I steal your job? Debugging Indian Computer programmers", the author, an Indian software engineer, has slammed Lou Dobbs of CNN for calling the foreign high-tech workers as non-tax payers, and humiliating the enormous contributions of foreign high-tech workforce to the American economy.
"Foreign high-tech workers who come here on H-1B / L1 visas pay every tax that U.S. citizens do, including Social Security and Medicare. But if they return to their homeland, then they will not get any benefits from these programs. The recent recession cost the United States more than half a million foreign high-tech workers who had to return home after paying all these taxes. In fact, Americans owe them money"
The author writes.
"The ignorance to mention the stupendous contributions of immigrant high-tech workers was the primary cause for the anti-Indian atmosphere which is seen among computer professionals lately. Unfortunately, neither the media nor the public understand the foreign high-tech workforce. The net result: those who supported the foreign high-tech worker programs have taken a back seat to play safe, and Indians and others who came here on visas, and worked their butts off to make this country prosper are named 'slaves', 'dummies', and 'enemies'. writes the author, N.Sivakumar.
The book also claims that bringing in foreign high-tech workforce at the right time was the primary reason for America's stupendous high-tech success, and gives statistics and evidence to prove that hadn't America acted quickly, the Europeans would have taken over the software dominance.
The book also outlines the life, struggle and achievements of Indian programmers in America with entertaining facts, and is a prime discussion topic in many anti-outsourcing and immigration websites lately.
In a book titled "Dude, did I steal your job? Debugging Indian Computer programmers", the author, an Indian software engineer, has slammed Lou Dobbs of CNN for calling the foreign high-tech workers as non-tax payers, and humiliating the enormous contributions of foreign high-tech workforce to the American economy.
"Foreign high-tech workers who come here on H-1B / L1 visas pay every tax that U.S. citizens do, including Social Security and Medicare. But if they return to their homeland, then they will not get any benefits from these programs. The recent recession cost the United States more than half a million foreign high-tech workers who had to return home after paying all these taxes. In fact, Americans owe them money"
The author writes.
"The ignorance to mention the stupendous contributions of immigrant high-tech workers was the primary cause for the anti-Indian atmosphere which is seen among computer professionals lately. Unfortunately, neither the media nor the public understand the foreign high-tech workforce. The net result: those who supported the foreign high-tech worker programs have taken a back seat to play safe, and Indians and others who came here on visas, and worked their butts off to make this country prosper are named 'slaves', 'dummies', and 'enemies'. writes the author, N.Sivakumar.
The book also claims that bringing in foreign high-tech workforce at the right time was the primary reason for America's stupendous high-tech success, and gives statistics and evidence to prove that hadn't America acted quickly, the Europeans would have taken over the software dominance.
The book also outlines the life, struggle and achievements of Indian programmers in America with entertaining facts, and is a prime discussion topic in many anti-outsourcing and immigration websites lately.
ca_immigrant
06-23 03:55 PM
I'm surprised nobody is even considering the other aspect i.e. the pleasure to live in your own house. We people are living in US in a small sized appt. while we bought houses in India, which is on rent. You will never know the pleasure of living in your own space...
in agreement.....there is definately pleasure in living in your own house....
in agreement.....there is definately pleasure in living in your own house....
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario