akred
04-06 08:51 PM
This bill seems to require a labor certification like process for every H1B extension. All of us who have gone through labor certification know how painful the initial data collection is when it comes to proving unavailability of US workers. How many employers will want to or be able to get a labor certification like process done for every H1 extension?
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
yabadaba
08-11 09:03 AM
Pappu, if u put in cable news network and state = Georgia...it will pull up 15 records of h1b applications made by CNN in 2005. maybe someone needs to tell dobbs that. 9 H1 B for fox
paragpujara
08-06 02:37 PM
One Chinese person walks into a bar in America late one night and he
saw Steven Spielberg.
As he was a great fan of his movies, he rushes over to him, and asks
for his autograph.
Instead, Spielberg gives him a slap and says, "You Chinese people
bombed our Pearl Harbor, get outta here.
"The astonished Chinese man replied, "It was not the Chinese who bombed
your Pearl Harbor, it was the Japanese".
"Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, you're all the same," replied Spielberg.
In return, the Chinese gives Spielberg a slap and says, "You sank the
Titanic, my forefathers were on that ship.
"Shocked, Spielberg replies, "It was the iceberg that sank the ship,
not me."
The Chinese replies, "Iceberg, Spielberg, Carlsberg, you're all the
same."
This particular joke won an award for the best joke in a competition
organized in Britain and this joke was sent by an Indian.
saw Steven Spielberg.
As he was a great fan of his movies, he rushes over to him, and asks
for his autograph.
Instead, Spielberg gives him a slap and says, "You Chinese people
bombed our Pearl Harbor, get outta here.
"The astonished Chinese man replied, "It was not the Chinese who bombed
your Pearl Harbor, it was the Japanese".
"Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, you're all the same," replied Spielberg.
In return, the Chinese gives Spielberg a slap and says, "You sank the
Titanic, my forefathers were on that ship.
"Shocked, Spielberg replies, "It was the iceberg that sank the ship,
not me."
The Chinese replies, "Iceberg, Spielberg, Carlsberg, you're all the
same."
This particular joke won an award for the best joke in a competition
organized in Britain and this joke was sent by an Indian.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
sanju
12-17 04:32 PM
I told you guys.. This site name should. Now
This guy seems seems to be an agent of some other site that wants us all to track fake data of others GCs, instead of working to eliminate the problem. Is thats why he is always putting labels on this forum?
.
This guy seems seems to be an agent of some other site that wants us all to track fake data of others GCs, instead of working to eliminate the problem. Is thats why he is always putting labels on this forum?
.
more...
JunRN
09-26 08:03 PM
Under the Democrats immigration principle, family members of EB GC applicants will be given GC but not count towards the 140,000 quota.
gapala
12-17 05:24 PM
:D:D:D That atleast made my evening!
I can see tabletpc standing naked!!!!!:D
I can see tabletpc standing naked!!!!!:D
more...
sanju
04-07 01:52 PM
Can there be a differentiation between extensions/renewals/company changes and new H1bs?
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
Here is why -
People who drafted and proposed this bill wants us all out PERIOD. They don't care if we are already on H1 waiting for our green card or if it is a new H1. The restrictions want us all OUT. Some people on this forum have elitist attitude (alias, I am not referring to you here, simply making a point after reading some of the post) because they either do not work for the consulting company or they are have Masters from a US Univ. Big deal�. If this passes, these people will elitist attitudes will soon realize what they would be up against.
IEEE-USA and Ron Hira et al say that they want to speed up the green card process but they oppose H1 visas. However, for whom do they want to speed up the green card process when they don�t even want people on H1 in US and are proposing a bill to systematically purge us all from US.
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
Here is why -
People who drafted and proposed this bill wants us all out PERIOD. They don't care if we are already on H1 waiting for our green card or if it is a new H1. The restrictions want us all OUT. Some people on this forum have elitist attitude (alias, I am not referring to you here, simply making a point after reading some of the post) because they either do not work for the consulting company or they are have Masters from a US Univ. Big deal�. If this passes, these people will elitist attitudes will soon realize what they would be up against.
IEEE-USA and Ron Hira et al say that they want to speed up the green card process but they oppose H1 visas. However, for whom do they want to speed up the green card process when they don�t even want people on H1 in US and are proposing a bill to systematically purge us all from US.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
H1B-GC
02-21 12:24 PM
But this *****(offensive word deleted) has 800,000 Viewers on his Show.Gets $6 Million From CNN and lives in a 300 Acre Home in Sussex County, New Jersey.:eek:
more...
axp817
03-25 01:59 PM
If he indeed was affiliated with the USCIS, I would want to hear his take on this even more. We are trying to understand what can and cannot be done in terms of self employment while on AOS and who better to answer this, than a USCIS representative.
No one is trying to break the rules, just trying to understand what the rules are so they aren't unknowingly broken.
And I know you were just joking, tee hee.
No one is trying to break the rules, just trying to understand what the rules are so they aren't unknowingly broken.
And I know you were just joking, tee hee.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
hiralal
06-05 09:51 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.
you are wrong and right ...it all depends on location and the period. there is one more article and I will post that. (I am talking from investment point of view but I agree both owning a house and renting a place have their own pros and cons).
you are wrong in the present day ..i.e. as long as prices are falling (which is the case in most areas today) ..owing a home is bad BAD investment.
your assumption is correct once the prices start to rise by 3 - 4 % annually .. but that will take 3 - 4 years more at the minimum
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.
you are wrong and right ...it all depends on location and the period. there is one more article and I will post that. (I am talking from investment point of view but I agree both owning a house and renting a place have their own pros and cons).
you are wrong in the present day ..i.e. as long as prices are falling (which is the case in most areas today) ..owing a home is bad BAD investment.
your assumption is correct once the prices start to rise by 3 - 4 % annually .. but that will take 3 - 4 years more at the minimum
more...
Marphad
12-18 12:10 PM
Well, all of the above were done to Kashmiri Pandits by terrorists. Yet we don't find any terrorists among the Pandits, who are the real victims of the Kashmir situation.
Stop trying to find excuses for terrorism. Stop this perverted sympathy for terrorists.
Well said!
Stop trying to find excuses for terrorism. Stop this perverted sympathy for terrorists.
Well said!
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
americandesi
04-15 06:37 PM
3. Will the stress level increase after buying the house (again worried for making payments, losing jobs). Is it worth it.
It's definetly not worth it. Here's an artice on one such riches to rags story.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/
As per the article "She has had to take extreme measures to pay for her interest-only mortgage of $2,500 a month"
It's definetly not worth it. Here's an artice on one such riches to rags story.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/
As per the article "She has had to take extreme measures to pay for her interest-only mortgage of $2,500 a month"
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
surabhi
03-25 10:57 AM
That case was decided in 2000 after the h-1b had been filed; denied; appealed; though on layer of court and then finally decided by this court. This is why it is difficult to challenge USCIS; it takes years and years for it to weave though the system.
USCIS could have used this case many years ago; however, vermont service center didn't apply the principles of this case until 2007. Once; senators/congressmen started putting pressure on them to start getting tough.
Although they think there may be gaming of the system; they have to find a legal way to teach people a lessson. This case is what they can legally do to deny h-1b's.
Thanks for the link. Essentially there are 2 issues here
1. Proving that Employee - Employer relationship exists between H1 beneficiary and employer. The ability to hire, pay, supervise and fire should be demonstrated.
In cases where it is denying, USCIS is of opinion that the employer is in contract, manpower agency and their variants.
This is somewhat analogous to similar test done by IRS to establish emploee-employer relationship in case of independent contractors.
Not sure if it would make much difference, but if the petition letter demonstrates that the employer has control over the employee required matters, provide equipment (laptop etc) and that employer is primarily not in manpower business, it may fly.
2. Second issue is about need to bachelors degree and that computer programming is speciality occupation. I think there are clear precedents on this with guidance memos from USCIS agreeing that computer analyst /programmer is indeed a speciality occupation and that bachelors degree is a minimum requirement.
I am unable to attach actual doc on this message because of size limitations. But here is summary quoting from murthy.com
"In a December 22, 2000 memorandum from INS Nebraska Service Center (NSC) Director Terry Way to NSC Adjudications Officers, NSC acknowledges the specialized and complex nature of most Computer Programming positions. The memo describes both Computer Programmers and Programmer Analysts as occupations in transition, meaning that the entry requirements have evolved as described in the above paragraph.
Therefore, NSC will generally consider the position of Computer Programmer to be a specialty occupation. The memo draws a distinction between a position with actual programming duties (programming and analysis, customized design and/or modification of software, resolution of problems) and one that simply involves entering computer code for a non-computer related business.
The requirements in the OOH have evolved from bachelor's degrees being generally required but 2-year degrees being acceptable; to the current situation with bachelor's degrees again being required, while those with 2-year degrees can qualify only for some lower level jobs."
USCIS could have used this case many years ago; however, vermont service center didn't apply the principles of this case until 2007. Once; senators/congressmen started putting pressure on them to start getting tough.
Although they think there may be gaming of the system; they have to find a legal way to teach people a lessson. This case is what they can legally do to deny h-1b's.
Thanks for the link. Essentially there are 2 issues here
1. Proving that Employee - Employer relationship exists between H1 beneficiary and employer. The ability to hire, pay, supervise and fire should be demonstrated.
In cases where it is denying, USCIS is of opinion that the employer is in contract, manpower agency and their variants.
This is somewhat analogous to similar test done by IRS to establish emploee-employer relationship in case of independent contractors.
Not sure if it would make much difference, but if the petition letter demonstrates that the employer has control over the employee required matters, provide equipment (laptop etc) and that employer is primarily not in manpower business, it may fly.
2. Second issue is about need to bachelors degree and that computer programming is speciality occupation. I think there are clear precedents on this with guidance memos from USCIS agreeing that computer analyst /programmer is indeed a speciality occupation and that bachelors degree is a minimum requirement.
I am unable to attach actual doc on this message because of size limitations. But here is summary quoting from murthy.com
"In a December 22, 2000 memorandum from INS Nebraska Service Center (NSC) Director Terry Way to NSC Adjudications Officers, NSC acknowledges the specialized and complex nature of most Computer Programming positions. The memo describes both Computer Programmers and Programmer Analysts as occupations in transition, meaning that the entry requirements have evolved as described in the above paragraph.
Therefore, NSC will generally consider the position of Computer Programmer to be a specialty occupation. The memo draws a distinction between a position with actual programming duties (programming and analysis, customized design and/or modification of software, resolution of problems) and one that simply involves entering computer code for a non-computer related business.
The requirements in the OOH have evolved from bachelor's degrees being generally required but 2-year degrees being acceptable; to the current situation with bachelor's degrees again being required, while those with 2-year degrees can qualify only for some lower level jobs."
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
abracadabra102
01-03 02:48 PM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
senthil1
04-08 07:28 PM
Finally anti immigrants will make the immigrants to fight to keep atleast whatever they have it now. If we want EB reform we may have to accept some H1b restrictions. Otherwise get ready for status quo and wait years and years to get gc with same H1b mess as this year. If you ask liberal H1b and liberal GC then you may not get anything. I will be surprised if Strive bill passes without meaningfull H1b reform. The situation is completely different from 1999 or 2000. If they bring multiple anti immigrant bills then everything may be dropped. Best way is to introduce that 50% of hires should be US workers. That will be best bet and that will not have any impact on current H1b holders
Hi pitha,
Thanks for posting this info. Could you please share the source of this information?
None of us should take this bill lightly. There is a saying - "one should never watch sausage or law being made". The guys who vote on the bills, in most instances, don't actually know what they are voting on. Most lawmakers may vote in favor of this bill as the anti-lobby is warpping this bill around a message "this bill is to enhance protections for American workers, so are you going to vote against American workers?" As such most lawmakers could vote in favor of this bill. The current environment is very dangerous where most people watch news in the sound-bites and half of the Senate is running for President. In such an environment, if you ask Obama, Hilary, Dodd, McCain etc., they are all likely to vote in favor of this bill, without going into the nuances and actual implications of this bill. None of these guys would want to be headlines saying something like �Obama is against American Works�. No one will actually care to look at the long term implication of such a bill whereby most of the IT jobs will be outsourced.
From tomorrow, we should all email and inform everybody that we can, including our employers. What is the direction from IV core? We are all waiting for the matching orders��.
Hi pitha,
Thanks for posting this info. Could you please share the source of this information?
None of us should take this bill lightly. There is a saying - "one should never watch sausage or law being made". The guys who vote on the bills, in most instances, don't actually know what they are voting on. Most lawmakers may vote in favor of this bill as the anti-lobby is warpping this bill around a message "this bill is to enhance protections for American workers, so are you going to vote against American workers?" As such most lawmakers could vote in favor of this bill. The current environment is very dangerous where most people watch news in the sound-bites and half of the Senate is running for President. In such an environment, if you ask Obama, Hilary, Dodd, McCain etc., they are all likely to vote in favor of this bill, without going into the nuances and actual implications of this bill. None of these guys would want to be headlines saying something like �Obama is against American Works�. No one will actually care to look at the long term implication of such a bill whereby most of the IT jobs will be outsourced.
From tomorrow, we should all email and inform everybody that we can, including our employers. What is the direction from IV core? We are all waiting for the matching orders��.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
dontcareanymore
08-05 12:45 PM
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
W T F is unfair in that ? Why can't some one convert if they are indeed qualified as EB2 ?
How about a thorough investigation in to your case to compare what you do with what host of other EB3s do?
How about to see how long you have been with your employer and how long you intend to stay ?
How about investigate all other GC apps from your employer and compare your job duties to to others
I know you are a looser and just convinced your sweatshop owner to file an EB2 case for you. So don't preach.
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
W T F is unfair in that ? Why can't some one convert if they are indeed qualified as EB2 ?
How about a thorough investigation in to your case to compare what you do with what host of other EB3s do?
How about to see how long you have been with your employer and how long you intend to stay ?
How about investigate all other GC apps from your employer and compare your job duties to to others
I know you are a looser and just convinced your sweatshop owner to file an EB2 case for you. So don't preach.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
Macaca
05-27 05:20 PM
U.S. Probes Infosys Over Visas (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576343070058872708.html) By MIRIAM JORDAN | Wall Street Journal
U.S. authorities are investigating whether an Indian software giant repeatedly violated American visa laws in order to place its own foreign employees in temporary jobs at some big corporate clients in the U.S.
The probe is examining whether Infosys Technologies Ltd. used inexpensive, easy-to-obtain visas meant to cover short-term business visits to the U.S.�instead of the appropriate, but harder to get, work visas�to bring in an unknown number of its employees for longer-term stays, according to people familiar with the matter.
These so-called B-1 business visas are intended for foreign nationals who come to the U.S. for purposes such as attending business conventions, consulting with business associates or installing machinery.
A State Department spokeswoman said the department is investigating Bangalore-based Infosys but declined further comment.
A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security, said ICE agents had visited Infosys's U.S. offices. However, she said that "as a matter of policy, the agency can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an ongoing investigation."
In a statement Tuesday, Infosys said it "received a subpoena from a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The subpoena requires us to provide information to the grand jury regarding our sponsorships for, and uses of, B-1 business visas."
In a filing Tuesday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it "intends to comply with the subpoena and to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation."
Infosys is best known as an outsourcing company that provides India-based computing and other technology services to Western clients. But it also boasts thousands of U.S.-based employees who develop and install software for back-office accounting, logistics and supply-chain management for companies in the retail, finance and manufacturing industries. Infosys doesn't disclose the identity of its clients.
The visa investigation comes amid a national debate in the U.S. over whether foreign workers, particularly in the software sector, are displacing qualified Americans because they are cheaper to employ.
The investigation has spurred the government to say it intends to tighten visa regulations to close loopholes that critics say enable employers to abuse the immigration system.
The probe was sparked by a lawsuit filed in Alabama state court earlier this year by an Infosys employee named Jack "Jay" Palmer Jr., alleging that Infosys misused the B-1 visa program. The lawsuit, which was recently moved to federal court, alleges that Infosys should have used a different visa program, known as H-1B, under which high-skilled professionals, such as software developers, are allowed into the U.S. for longer-term work.
The U.S. issues just 65,000 H-1B visas a year, and demand sometimes exceeds supply. H-1Bs take several months to get and can cost upward of $3,000 per individual. The is no cap on B-1 visas, which can be obtained in a matter of days for $140 each.
In a court filing, Infosys, which acknowledges using B-1 visas, denied the lawsuit's allegations that it had abused them.
In an interview, Paul Gottsegen, Infosys's chief marketing officer, said he couldn't comment on a matter before the court, but he added: "We are currently in the midst of a detailed internal review to understand whether we need to change or tighten controls with the visa-application process. We are moving as quickly as possible on this important work."
After learning of Mr. Palmer's lawsuit, Sen. :DChuck Grassley (R, Iowa):D wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, his staff said, citing the suit and demanding an investigation of the B-1 visa program.
"I'm concerned about fraudulent actions that at least one foreign-based company has allegedly been taking in order get around the requirements and U.S. worker protections�.," said the April 14 letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Visa fraud can carry penalties of 10 years in prison, in addition to fines. Companies found to violate the terms of a visa program such as H-1B can be temporarily suspended from participating in the program.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, Infosys had revenue of $6 billion, about two-thirds of which came from North America. To service its U.S. clients, Infosys has become one of the top users of the H-1B visa program, employing about 10,000 H-1B holders in the U.S., according to its annual report. Other large users of the visas include Microsoft Corp. and Indian tech titans Wipro Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
H-1B visa holders can remain in the U.S. for as long as three years and are paid locally; their employers withhold federal and state income tax. B-1 visa holders are paid by the employer from their home country.
In his lawsuit, Mr. Palmer, a principal consultant at Infosys, alleges that Infosys was affected by the limited number of H-1Bs in 2009 and began using B-1s to circumvent H-1B requirements.
His attorney, Kenny Mendelsohn, said: "We are cooperating with investigators from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security."
In March 2010, Mr. Palmer attended meetings in Bangalore, where Infosys officials discussed the need to find "ways to creatively get around the H-1B limitations and process to work the system to increase profits and the value of Infosys' stock," according to the lawsuit. Infosys denies the allegation.
Later, according to Mr. Palmer's complaint, he was asked to prepare letters in support of B-1 applications stating "the employee was coming to the United States for meetings, rather than to work at a job."
After he refused to write such letters, Mr. Palmer was instructed "to keep quiet" by a manager sent from India who confirmed the violations, according to the suit�a claim Infosys denies.
Mr. Palmer reported his concerns to Infosys' corporate counsel, Jeff Friedel, who told him to report them to the company's whistle-blower team, which he did in October 2010, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Friedel didn't reply to a request for comment.
Mr. Palmer's suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for, among other things, breach of terms of employment and emotional distress. Mr. Palmer remains employed by Infosys, but he is not currently doing any work, according to his attorney.
In recent years, Congress has introduced anti-fraud, training and other fees that have significantly raised the price of securing an H-1B visa.
"As Congress has made the H-1B visa category more expensive and more difficult to obtain, companies have searched for alternatives. The B-1 is one such alternative," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University.
"Because the B-1 is nebulous, some companies may be going beyond its intention," he added.
According to State Department regulations, a B-1 visa holder cannot engage in "local employment or labor for hire."
U.S. Moves from Rhetoric to Action on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/25/u-s-moves-from-rhetoric-to-action-on-visas/) By Megha Bahree and Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
What the Infosys Whistleblower Said on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/26/what-the-infosys-whistleblower-said-on-visas/) By Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
U.S. authorities are investigating whether an Indian software giant repeatedly violated American visa laws in order to place its own foreign employees in temporary jobs at some big corporate clients in the U.S.
The probe is examining whether Infosys Technologies Ltd. used inexpensive, easy-to-obtain visas meant to cover short-term business visits to the U.S.�instead of the appropriate, but harder to get, work visas�to bring in an unknown number of its employees for longer-term stays, according to people familiar with the matter.
These so-called B-1 business visas are intended for foreign nationals who come to the U.S. for purposes such as attending business conventions, consulting with business associates or installing machinery.
A State Department spokeswoman said the department is investigating Bangalore-based Infosys but declined further comment.
A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security, said ICE agents had visited Infosys's U.S. offices. However, she said that "as a matter of policy, the agency can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an ongoing investigation."
In a statement Tuesday, Infosys said it "received a subpoena from a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The subpoena requires us to provide information to the grand jury regarding our sponsorships for, and uses of, B-1 business visas."
In a filing Tuesday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it "intends to comply with the subpoena and to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation."
Infosys is best known as an outsourcing company that provides India-based computing and other technology services to Western clients. But it also boasts thousands of U.S.-based employees who develop and install software for back-office accounting, logistics and supply-chain management for companies in the retail, finance and manufacturing industries. Infosys doesn't disclose the identity of its clients.
The visa investigation comes amid a national debate in the U.S. over whether foreign workers, particularly in the software sector, are displacing qualified Americans because they are cheaper to employ.
The investigation has spurred the government to say it intends to tighten visa regulations to close loopholes that critics say enable employers to abuse the immigration system.
The probe was sparked by a lawsuit filed in Alabama state court earlier this year by an Infosys employee named Jack "Jay" Palmer Jr., alleging that Infosys misused the B-1 visa program. The lawsuit, which was recently moved to federal court, alleges that Infosys should have used a different visa program, known as H-1B, under which high-skilled professionals, such as software developers, are allowed into the U.S. for longer-term work.
The U.S. issues just 65,000 H-1B visas a year, and demand sometimes exceeds supply. H-1Bs take several months to get and can cost upward of $3,000 per individual. The is no cap on B-1 visas, which can be obtained in a matter of days for $140 each.
In a court filing, Infosys, which acknowledges using B-1 visas, denied the lawsuit's allegations that it had abused them.
In an interview, Paul Gottsegen, Infosys's chief marketing officer, said he couldn't comment on a matter before the court, but he added: "We are currently in the midst of a detailed internal review to understand whether we need to change or tighten controls with the visa-application process. We are moving as quickly as possible on this important work."
After learning of Mr. Palmer's lawsuit, Sen. :DChuck Grassley (R, Iowa):D wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, his staff said, citing the suit and demanding an investigation of the B-1 visa program.
"I'm concerned about fraudulent actions that at least one foreign-based company has allegedly been taking in order get around the requirements and U.S. worker protections�.," said the April 14 letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Visa fraud can carry penalties of 10 years in prison, in addition to fines. Companies found to violate the terms of a visa program such as H-1B can be temporarily suspended from participating in the program.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, Infosys had revenue of $6 billion, about two-thirds of which came from North America. To service its U.S. clients, Infosys has become one of the top users of the H-1B visa program, employing about 10,000 H-1B holders in the U.S., according to its annual report. Other large users of the visas include Microsoft Corp. and Indian tech titans Wipro Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
H-1B visa holders can remain in the U.S. for as long as three years and are paid locally; their employers withhold federal and state income tax. B-1 visa holders are paid by the employer from their home country.
In his lawsuit, Mr. Palmer, a principal consultant at Infosys, alleges that Infosys was affected by the limited number of H-1Bs in 2009 and began using B-1s to circumvent H-1B requirements.
His attorney, Kenny Mendelsohn, said: "We are cooperating with investigators from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security."
In March 2010, Mr. Palmer attended meetings in Bangalore, where Infosys officials discussed the need to find "ways to creatively get around the H-1B limitations and process to work the system to increase profits and the value of Infosys' stock," according to the lawsuit. Infosys denies the allegation.
Later, according to Mr. Palmer's complaint, he was asked to prepare letters in support of B-1 applications stating "the employee was coming to the United States for meetings, rather than to work at a job."
After he refused to write such letters, Mr. Palmer was instructed "to keep quiet" by a manager sent from India who confirmed the violations, according to the suit�a claim Infosys denies.
Mr. Palmer reported his concerns to Infosys' corporate counsel, Jeff Friedel, who told him to report them to the company's whistle-blower team, which he did in October 2010, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Friedel didn't reply to a request for comment.
Mr. Palmer's suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for, among other things, breach of terms of employment and emotional distress. Mr. Palmer remains employed by Infosys, but he is not currently doing any work, according to his attorney.
In recent years, Congress has introduced anti-fraud, training and other fees that have significantly raised the price of securing an H-1B visa.
"As Congress has made the H-1B visa category more expensive and more difficult to obtain, companies have searched for alternatives. The B-1 is one such alternative," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University.
"Because the B-1 is nebulous, some companies may be going beyond its intention," he added.
According to State Department regulations, a B-1 visa holder cannot engage in "local employment or labor for hire."
U.S. Moves from Rhetoric to Action on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/25/u-s-moves-from-rhetoric-to-action-on-visas/) By Megha Bahree and Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
What the Infosys Whistleblower Said on Visas (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/05/26/what-the-infosys-whistleblower-said-on-visas/) By Amol Sharma | IndiaRealTime
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
desi3933
03-23 05:09 PM
Wow...that is a pretty harsh list. Is it possible for you to politely point out that you need to prove legal status from your last entry into the country on H1B and not go all the way back to 2000 giving contracts and all ?
Two different things -
Legal Status to be shown from last entry for I-485 approval under 245(k). Actually the out of status days could be as much as 180 calendar days. However, USCIS can ask any information to verify any data on Form G-325a (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-325a.pdf) (Biographic Information). One of the important info is Employment History.
Two different things -
Legal Status to be shown from last entry for I-485 approval under 245(k). Actually the out of status days could be as much as 180 calendar days. However, USCIS can ask any information to verify any data on Form G-325a (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-325a.pdf) (Biographic Information). One of the important info is Employment History.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
Legal
08-11 11:07 AM
I agree with yabadaba. We should also send feedback to CNN about the lies Lou Dobbs is perpetuating on national TV.
You can try...I am afraid CNN is not going to listen to you.
They know these things well. Lou Dobb's anti-immigrant frenzy/ fanaticism hasboosted the viewership..that's all matters to CNN.
You can try...I am afraid CNN is not going to listen to you.
They know these things well. Lou Dobb's anti-immigrant frenzy/ fanaticism hasboosted the viewership..that's all matters to CNN.
Pineapple
11-09 02:20 PM
Not to split hairs, but I do not think Lou Dobbs is really "Republican" as far as the core political philosophy of GOP goes, and the same goes for Tancerdo et all. All are extremist nuts and never had any mainstream following. But there is a difference: Forget the fact that he is a pathetic opportunist who switched from financial analysis to immigrant bashing simply because the latter generated more ratings than the former. He positions himself as a anti-globalization nativist, and would find more sympathizers in the loony left rather than the loony right. Tancerdo etc are thinly disguised white-supremacists / nativists and their natural base is the far far right Ku Klux Klan nuts.
In any case, there is nothing special about this election which teaches us to ignore the idiots. Most americans are distinctly uncomfortable with the rants of these guys and therefore Lou dobbs would always remain irrelevant. The world moves not because Lou says it does.. it moves regardless.
In any case, there is nothing special about this election which teaches us to ignore the idiots. Most americans are distinctly uncomfortable with the rants of these guys and therefore Lou dobbs would always remain irrelevant. The world moves not because Lou says it does.. it moves regardless.
Macaca
12-28 06:33 PM
India asserting its interests vis-a-vis China (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20101228a2.html) By Harsh Pant | Japan Times
India hosted Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao earlier this month in an attempt to stabilize Sino-Indian ties, which have undergone great turbulence the past two years.
There was no dearth of warm words during the visit: Wen, in a lecture in New Delhi, invoked Mahatma Gandhi as "a man of love and integrity" who "has always lived in my heart." He stressed that although Sino-Indian relations have experienced major turns, they were only a short episode in a 2000-year history of friendly bilateral exchanges.
Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna reciprocated by suggesting that the two nations do not see any contradiction in each other's rise and that both understand the importance of leveraging growth and development with mutual cooperation.
As in the past, economic ties ended up being the focus of the visit. The two sides have now set a target of $100 billion in trade expansion by 2015 from the present $60 billion. Wen had come to India with a group of around 300 Chinese executives; business deals worth about $16 billion were signed. But there was no progress on the regional trade agreement as India remains concerned about its growing trade deficit with China.
China did not concede to India on any major issue while India decided to play hardball on various issues of importance to China. Wen, for example, refused to acknowledge Indian concerns over China's issuance of stapled visas to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir, the growing Chinese presence in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and anti-India terrorist groups operating from Pakistan. Unlike other major powers, China has refused to unambiguously demand that Pakistan shut down the terrorist infrastructure on its soil.
For its part, India this time refused to explicitly state that it recognizes the Tibet Autonomous Region as part of the Chinese territory.
There was little movement on a range of concerns that India had flagged before the visit. India had expressed concerns about Beijing damming rivers like the Brahmaputra as well as the nontariff trade barriers to Indian companies in China. India remains keen on gaining access to Chinese markets, especially in the area of pharmaceuticals, information technology and engineering goods.
Despite the lackluster nature of Wen's India trip, the newfound robustness in India's China policy in recent months is rather striking. After trying to push significant differences with China under the carpet for years, Indian decision-makers are being forced to grudgingly acknowledge that the relationship with China is becoming more contentious.
India has adopted a harder line on Tibet in recent weeks by making it clear to Beijing that it expects China to reciprocate on Jammu and Kashmir just as India has respected Chinese sensitivities on Tibet and Taiwan.
Ignoring pressures from Beijing, India decided to take part in the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo in Oslo. Beijing had asked several countries, including India, to boycott the ceremony, describing the prize as open support for criminal activities in China. India was among the 44 states that did participate; Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq were among the nations that did not attend. There were rumors that Wen might cancel his India trip in response.
India's challenge is indeed formidable as it has not yet achieved the economic and political profile that China enjoys regionally and globally. But it gets increasingly bracketed with China as a rising power, emerging power or even a global superpower. India's main security concern is not the increasingly decrepit state of Pakistan but an ever more assertive China, which is widely viewed in India as having a better ability for strategic planning.
Indian policymakers, however, continue to believe that Beijing is not a short-term threat to India but needs to be watched over the long term even as Indian defense officials increasingly warn in rather blunt terms about the disparity between the two Asian powers.
India's naval chief has warned that India has neither "the capability nor the intention to match China force for force," while the former Indian air chief has suggested that China poses more of a threat to India than Pakistan.
It is certainly in the interest of both India and China to stabilize their relationship by seeking out issues on which their interests converge. But strategic problems do not necessarily make for satisfactory solutions merely because they are desirable and in the interest of all.
For a long time, India was not very important in China's foreign policy calculus, and there was a general perception that India could be easily pushed around. New Delhi's own actions also cemented a perception in China that it was easier to challenge Indian interests without incurring any cost.
New Delhi's latest robustness in its dealings with Beijing should, therefore, be welcomed insofar as it clarifies certain red lines that remain nonnegotiable.
Harsh V. Pant teaches at King's College London
Asia's Busy 2010 in Review (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/12/28/asias_busy_2010_in_review_99328.html) By Todd Crowell | RealClearWorld
Emerging Powers and Cooperative Security in Asia (http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/WorkingPapers/WP221.pdf) By Joshy M. Paul | S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
India hosted Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao earlier this month in an attempt to stabilize Sino-Indian ties, which have undergone great turbulence the past two years.
There was no dearth of warm words during the visit: Wen, in a lecture in New Delhi, invoked Mahatma Gandhi as "a man of love and integrity" who "has always lived in my heart." He stressed that although Sino-Indian relations have experienced major turns, they were only a short episode in a 2000-year history of friendly bilateral exchanges.
Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna reciprocated by suggesting that the two nations do not see any contradiction in each other's rise and that both understand the importance of leveraging growth and development with mutual cooperation.
As in the past, economic ties ended up being the focus of the visit. The two sides have now set a target of $100 billion in trade expansion by 2015 from the present $60 billion. Wen had come to India with a group of around 300 Chinese executives; business deals worth about $16 billion were signed. But there was no progress on the regional trade agreement as India remains concerned about its growing trade deficit with China.
China did not concede to India on any major issue while India decided to play hardball on various issues of importance to China. Wen, for example, refused to acknowledge Indian concerns over China's issuance of stapled visas to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir, the growing Chinese presence in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and anti-India terrorist groups operating from Pakistan. Unlike other major powers, China has refused to unambiguously demand that Pakistan shut down the terrorist infrastructure on its soil.
For its part, India this time refused to explicitly state that it recognizes the Tibet Autonomous Region as part of the Chinese territory.
There was little movement on a range of concerns that India had flagged before the visit. India had expressed concerns about Beijing damming rivers like the Brahmaputra as well as the nontariff trade barriers to Indian companies in China. India remains keen on gaining access to Chinese markets, especially in the area of pharmaceuticals, information technology and engineering goods.
Despite the lackluster nature of Wen's India trip, the newfound robustness in India's China policy in recent months is rather striking. After trying to push significant differences with China under the carpet for years, Indian decision-makers are being forced to grudgingly acknowledge that the relationship with China is becoming more contentious.
India has adopted a harder line on Tibet in recent weeks by making it clear to Beijing that it expects China to reciprocate on Jammu and Kashmir just as India has respected Chinese sensitivities on Tibet and Taiwan.
Ignoring pressures from Beijing, India decided to take part in the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo in Oslo. Beijing had asked several countries, including India, to boycott the ceremony, describing the prize as open support for criminal activities in China. India was among the 44 states that did participate; Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq were among the nations that did not attend. There were rumors that Wen might cancel his India trip in response.
India's challenge is indeed formidable as it has not yet achieved the economic and political profile that China enjoys regionally and globally. But it gets increasingly bracketed with China as a rising power, emerging power or even a global superpower. India's main security concern is not the increasingly decrepit state of Pakistan but an ever more assertive China, which is widely viewed in India as having a better ability for strategic planning.
Indian policymakers, however, continue to believe that Beijing is not a short-term threat to India but needs to be watched over the long term even as Indian defense officials increasingly warn in rather blunt terms about the disparity between the two Asian powers.
India's naval chief has warned that India has neither "the capability nor the intention to match China force for force," while the former Indian air chief has suggested that China poses more of a threat to India than Pakistan.
It is certainly in the interest of both India and China to stabilize their relationship by seeking out issues on which their interests converge. But strategic problems do not necessarily make for satisfactory solutions merely because they are desirable and in the interest of all.
For a long time, India was not very important in China's foreign policy calculus, and there was a general perception that India could be easily pushed around. New Delhi's own actions also cemented a perception in China that it was easier to challenge Indian interests without incurring any cost.
New Delhi's latest robustness in its dealings with Beijing should, therefore, be welcomed insofar as it clarifies certain red lines that remain nonnegotiable.
Harsh V. Pant teaches at King's College London
Asia's Busy 2010 in Review (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/12/28/asias_busy_2010_in_review_99328.html) By Todd Crowell | RealClearWorld
Emerging Powers and Cooperative Security in Asia (http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/WorkingPapers/WP221.pdf) By Joshy M. Paul | S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
No comments:
Post a Comment