Monday, July 4, 2011

images %IMG_DESC_8% . %IMG_DESC_1%
  • %IMG_DESC_1%


  • xyzgc
    12-21 01:40 PM
    The minorities in India for the most part don't want to do anything with extremism. Like the rest of india, they are concerned with making a decent livelihood though there is a somewhat sucessful attempt at painting them all as extremists by the Hindu Right wing.


    The Muslim minority in India is a supporter of Pakistan and its terror actiities. Not for the most part, but a tiny fraction and that is enough to create havoc in the country. We have our internal enemies with external linkages.


    It is not embrassment as they are not part of this crime. It is sad that they are to go out and state their innocence in ways they did. If anyone has helped in the attacks, I say go after them and punish them within the laws of the country. If that means feeding them dal/roti in jail, so be it as long as they get the punishment they deserve.


    I agree with you that they should not be embarassed. They have done nothing wrong but these incidents have also created room for self-introspection. Why is it that the muslims all over the world are projected as trouble-makers? Its high time that muslim intellectuals give this question a proper consideration rather than simply sweep it under the carpet saying that we didn't do all of this/we are being attacked as minorities/it emanates from poverity and lack of education and so on.


    Pakistan is cornered and have to make some real effort to show that they are not trying to fade this incident away from the world's memory. Unfortunately, if they don't take quick and decisive measures, they could self implode. They better realise that it is better to fix their own dilipadated house than trying to destroy the neighbors. Though I am no war monger, for the short term I think a small 10-20 person tactical team can do some damage at precise locations. Tit for tat but with useful results


    Well said, nobody on IV forums will advocate killing innocent Pakistanis. Many will support such precise bombings. We don't want to turn India into another terrorist nation.


    Obviously the issue of internal problems has to be addressed. This is a source on which extremist can tap on. As someone mentioned on this forum, Saif Ali Khan ( who has a hindu mother, hindu ex-wife and hindu GF) cannot get a home in India's most cosmopolitan city. Neither can Javed akhtar ( an avowed atheist) or shabana azmi. One can only imagine what the normal minorities face everyday. And ignoring this as just complaints of an 'ungrateful' muslim populace does not remove the very real discrimination that minorities face in modern India.


    Yes the internal problems must be addressed. I agree with you. I completely condemn the attacks on innocent christians and muslims. Its sad and its embarassing for me despite the fact that I didn't have any role to play in it. But that has to be done without any discriminations.
    Uniform civil code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Civil_Code) must be implemented. Muslim appeasement politics must be stopped by Congress party. We don't want to see any repeats of Shah Bano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Bano_case) cases. No special Shariat laws for Muslims.
    Hindus must be allowed to procure land in Kashmir, unconditionally. Kashmiri pandits who have lost everything in Kashmir must be reinstated. Article 370 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370) must be abolished.


    This is why I keep hoping for a Justice and executive system that address this. Punish the guilty. I have seen people either ignore the issue of Gujarat/orissa or even defend it. If you put your religion/race shades on, then one can ignore/defend such inhumane events. Equal opportunity for employment/housing/schooling is needed just like in USA. Address in an academic way if affirmative action is needed and take the politics out of it. One of the parameters of a strong democracy is the treatment and security of the minorities. India would only be stronger for it and that is my sincere hope. xyzgc -See if you can finally get around to address this


    I would not ignore Gujarat and Orissa as much as I would not ignore Godhra massacre. I agree the guilty be brought to justice and punished.
    Its difficult to do it internally and its more than difficult to do it for our external enemies.
    But it doesn't make your point invalid.




    wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1% . %IMG_DESC_2%
  • %IMG_DESC_2%


  • nogc_noproblem
    08-22 03:08 PM
    One day, a teacher, a garbage collector, and a lawyer all died and went to heaven.

    St. Peter was there, having a bad day because heaven was getting crowded. When they got to the gate, St. Peter informed them that there would be a test to get into Heaven: They each had to answer a single question.

    To the teacher, he said, "What was the name of the ship that crashed into an iceberg and sunk with all its passengers?"

    The teacher thought for a second, and then replied: "That would have been the Titanic, right?" St. Peter let him through the gate.

    Next, St. Peter turned to the garbage man, and figuring that heaven didn't really need all the stink that this guy would bring in, decided to make the question a little harder. "How many people died on the ship?"

    The garbage man guessed 1228, to which St. Peter said, "That happens to be right. Go ahead."

    St. Peter then turned to the lawyer. "What were their names?"




    . %IMG_DESC_3%
  • %IMG_DESC_3%


  • kumar1
    08-06 02:09 PM
    Idiot gave me red too!

    Dude - If you have issues, then fight for 50,000 Green Cards that USA gives away every year through a lottery. Why Indians are not eligible for that? Do you know that more than 80% of green cards are given based on family relations? They get green card just because their relative is a US citizen? Is it fair? Why an Indian/Chinesse graduate from Stanford should wait 6-10 years where someone is getting green card because his distant uncle (They do not remember when they met last time) is a naturalized US citizen? Even worse, fight against those scams where a non immigrant marries a US citizen for just getting green cards. Flight for those who have seen Backlog Reduction/Elimination days.....

    Out of all these causes, you got EB2/EB3 interfile cause? Shame on you! Please stop saying that you are from IIT. I have done B Tech from IIT and I do not remember that system producing garbage like you!




    2011 %IMG_DESC_2% . %IMG_DESC_4%
  • %IMG_DESC_4%


  • dealsnet
    01-10 03:39 PM
    Palestine was never a country. Even historian knows that there was a kingdom of Israel & Kingdom of Judah. The kings and the timeslines when the kingdoms were destroyed are also known. Due to numerous invasions there was a great diaspora of Jews to the other parts of the world. Even Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. The Romans under Titus burned down the Jewsish temple and killed entire tribes of Jews during the Jewish revolt against Rome in AD. 70. The modern state of Israel was in fact simply returing the ancient land of Israel to the Jews. Kashmir belongs to India. Pakistan has occupied Kashmir.



    more...

    . %IMG_DESC_5%
  • %IMG_DESC_5%


  • Ramba
    07-14 03:56 PM
    If 3000 per year for EB3 had set the availability date to 2001, shouldn�t have 30K for EB2 made it current long ago?. If India and China get about 30K visas per year my PD of early 2004 would have been current long ago. So there is something wrong in your logic there.

    Your supply and demand theory for EB3 I could be true.

    They will not give 30K EB2 visas to IN & CH in upfront. They will issue only 7% in first 3 quarter of FY. They release the unused EB2-ROW numbers and unused EB1 numbers to EB2 I ndiaand China in last 3 months of the FY, to avoid the wastage. Thats why it has jumped by 2 years.




    . %IMG_DESC_6%
  • %IMG_DESC_6%


  • Macaca
    12-27 12:34 PM
    The following appeared in NYT yesterday. It was discussed by Pat Buchanan (hosting Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC) last evening. Pat was surprised that Demz were considering it.

    It is available here http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/washington/26immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 � Counting on the support of the new Democratic majority in Congress, Democratic lawmakers and their Republican allies are working on measures that could place millions of illegal immigrants on a more direct path to citizenship than would a bill that the Senate passed in the spring.

    The lawmakers are considering abandoning a requirement in the Senate bill that would compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship.

    The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans that passed with significant Democratic support.

    Details of the bill, which would be introduced early next year, are being drafted. The lawmakers, who hope for bipartisan support, will almost certainly face pressure to compromise on the issues from some Republicans and conservative Democrats.

    Still, the proposals reflect significant shifts since the November elections, as well as critical support from the Homeland Security Department.

    Proponents said the prospects for such a measure, which would include tougher border security and a guest worker plan, had markedly improved since Nov. 7.

    The Senate plans to introduce its immigration bill next month with an eye toward passage in March or April, officials said. The House is expected to consider its version later. President Bush said last week that he hoped to sign an immigration bill next year.

    The major lawmakers drafting the legislation include Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, along with Representatives Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, and Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois. The four met this month, and their staffs have begun working on a bill.

    �I�m very hopeful about this, both in terms of the substance and the politics of it,� said Mr. Kennedy, the incoming chairman of the Senate Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship Subcommittee.

    Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that there would be hurdles. But he and other lawmakers say Republicans and Democrats are now more likely to work together to repair a system widely considered as broken.

    House Republicans blocked consideration of the bill that passed the Senate this year, saying it amounted to an amnesty for lawbreakers and voicing confidence that a tough stance would touch off a groundswell of support in the Congressional elections. The strategy largely failed.

    Hispanic voters, a swing constituency that Republicans covet, abandoned the party in large numbers. Several Republican hardliners, including Representatives John Hostettler of Indiana and J. D. Hayworth of Arizona, lost their seats. After the dismal showing, House Republicans denied F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, the departing chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an architect of the House immigration approach, a senior position on any major committee in the new Congress.

    Domestic security officials have voiced support for important elements of the framework under consideration. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has repeatedly raised doubts about the effectiveness of border fencing in remote desert areas. Mr. Bush signed the fence bill this year, but Congress did not appropriate enough money for it. Officials say they would also prefer a less burdensome process than the original Senate bill outlined.

    That bill divided the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants into three groups, those living here for five years or more, those here for two to five years and those here for less than two years.

    All but the illegal immigrants living here for five years or more, roughly seven million, would have to leave the country briefly to be eligible for legal status. Those here for fewer than two years would have to leave the country and would not even be guaranteed a slot in a guest worker plan.

    Domestic security officials said the original plan would have been enormously difficult to administer because many illegal immigrants lacked documentation to prove how long they had been in the United States.

    The officials said it would have fueled a market in fraudulent documents as illegal immigrants scrambled to offer proof of residency.

    The three-tiered approach would also discourage millions of illegal immigrants from registering, driving millions deeper underground.

    �We do have concerns over breaking it down into that tiered system,� said a domestic security official who insisted on anonymity. �When you do that, you run the risk of people trying to create false documentation that would get them the highest benefits.�

    Also expected to have prominent roles in the debate are Representatives Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat who is likely to head the House Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee; Howard L. Berman, a California Democrat who has followed immigration issues closely for many years; and Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who is set to lead the House Homeland Security Committee and has said he plans to re-evaluate the 700-mile fence.

    But Mr. Flake described himself as optimistic, saying the elections had disabused many Republicans of the notion that opposing legalization and guest worker plans would win widespread support.

    �That illusion is gone,� he said.

    The percentage of Hispanics who voted for Republicans fell to 29 percent, from 44 percent in 2004, and some Republicans say passing immigration bills is a crucial part of the effort to win them back.

    Mr. Flake warned that some Republicans might balk at proposals like broadening the number of illegal immigrants eligible for a less burdensome path to citizenship, making passage of bipartisan legislation potentially �politically more difficult.�

    The prospects for a bill that contains such a proposal remain particularly uncertain in the House, where many prominent Democrats want to ensure broad bipartisan backing as part of their efforts to maintain their majority in 2008, Congressional aides said.

    The House Democrats are concerned about protecting newly elected moderate and conservative Democrats, some of whom had campaigned against legalizing illegal immigrants.

    It is also unclear whether Mr. Gutierrez and Mr. Flake will produce the only House legislation on immigration and whether their plan will ultimately become the basis for the bill that emerges.

    In the Senate, Mr. Kennedy�s bill certainly has the backing of the Democratic leadership, Congressional aides said.

    Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, argued that expanding citizenship eligibility and abandoning financing for the fence would alienate moderates in both parties. The three-tier legalization system, a hard-fought compromise, was critical for moderate Republican support for the original bill.

    The plan under consideration would allow 10 million or 11 million illegal immigrants to become eligible to apply for citizenship without returning home, up from 7 million in the original Senate bill. To be granted citizenship, they would have to remain employed, pass background checks, pay fines and back taxes, and enroll in English classes.

    �I think it�s a nonstarter,� said Mr. Cornyn, who opposes a path to citizenship for illegal workers, but supports a plan for temporary workers that would let foreigners work here temporarily before returning home.

    Congressional aides and lawyers familiar with the proposed bills emphasize that it will be very difficult for a smaller group of illegal immigrants, those who arrived after a certain date, perhaps 2004, to become citizens. The aides said the bill might include incentives for illegal immigrants to leave the country. While they hope such elements may ease concerns, many challenges remain.

    Some powerful unions, which expect to exert more leverage in the new Congress, remain deeply opposed to the temporary worker program in the Senate bill. The unions say it threatens American jobs.

    Officials at the A.F.L.-C.I.O. say they can scuttle such a plan next year, even though Mr. Bush and businesses say it is critical to ensure an adequate labor force.

    There is also the political clock to consider. Supporters of immigration measures acknowledge that the prospects for a bipartisan bill will dim significantly if a bill is not passed before the presidential primaries of 2008 are in full swing.

    Some Congressional aides and immigrants� advocates worry about the commitment of Mr. McCain, a likely presidential candidate in 2008.

    Mr. McCain has long supported legalization that would not require illegal immigrants to leave the United States. Some advocates fear that his ambitions may lead to a shifting of that stance to avoid alienating moderate Republicans.

    A spokeswoman for Mr. McCain said last week that he was not available to comment on the bill being drafted.

    Many lawmakers say their hope is growing that Congress will pass an immigration bill next year.

    �There are going to be hard choices that are going to be made, because we need to build a bipartisan, broad-based coalition,� said Mr. Gutierrez, who leads the House Democratic immigration group. �But I�m hopeful that in the environment in which we�re working now we can get it done.�



    more...

    . %IMG_DESC_7%
  • %IMG_DESC_7%


  • SunnySurya
    08-05 10:58 AM
    I most definitely do. But all depends who needs the most help and what expense. If you ask me to donate a Kidney if my one my Kidney is already failing, I most likely will not help.
    But if you ask me for some other cause where I am not affected. I will definitly help. You would be doing the same things if your were in my shoes. If not atleast thinking the same things.

    So, you don't believe in helping others.




    2010 %IMG_DESC_3% . %IMG_DESC_8%
  • %IMG_DESC_8%


  • cinqsit
    03-26 02:08 PM
    UnitedNations,

    So whats the way out for people who get into this situation ? Find a job with a non-consulting company and start everything H1/GC from scratch ?

    cinqsit



    more...

    . %IMG_DESC_9%
  • %IMG_DESC_9%


  • immignation
    04-06 02:31 PM
    how's the market conditions in the San Jose/Santa Clara belt. houses there were really heated up avg 600k+. has it cooled down or still that crazy..

    I have been house hunting here in central NJ (west windsor, plainsboro and vicinity and am having a sticker shock just looking at the property taxes.. about 2%). What I understand from talking to people here is that these places are supposed to be a very good school district and schools receive most of their funding from property taxes (and very little from state). Good schools attract families with kids which increases the burden on schools and again property taxes have to be increased to build more schools/expand existing ones..




    hair %IMG_DESC_4% . %IMG_DESC_10%
  • %IMG_DESC_10%


  • aadimanav
    07-13 10:09 AM
    Friends,

    Please vote here, and share your ideas, regarding "Campaign for Visa Recapture"

    http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20132

    There should be enough people supporting any campaign to be successful.

    Thanks,



    more...

    . %IMG_DESC_11%
  • %IMG_DESC_11%


  • copsmart
    09-26 07:49 PM
    I am a big supporter of Obama and I really want to see him as the next president, but this message about the EB issues are really shocking to me.

    Obama as promised will cut outsourcing and create more jobs here in US, which in turn will create more demand in the job market.
    Moreover, I strongly believe that Obama has mentioned the EB backlog issue in one of the debates. So, we can expect some good thinks from his government.

    I am not sure how much the Durbin guy is going to influence in any of his decisions?
    But in general, I think the country will be in a better shape if Obama is elected as a president.

    Let�s hope for the best.

    BTW, don�t you guys think the Left party support the EB immigration compared to Right? Zoe Lofgren for instance.




    hot %IMG_DESC_5% . %IMG_DESC_12%
  • %IMG_DESC_12%


  • alterego
    07-14 01:12 PM
    Well, why is there 33% quota for EB1,2 and 3 in the first place. They could have very well made it 100% for Eb1 and if there was any spill over, EB2 gets them and then finally EB3! Because, US needs people from all categories.

    Now all that I am saying is there should be some % on the spill over that comes from EB1.

    If there are 300,000 applicants in EB2 and if the spill over from EB1 is 30K every year, you think it is fair that EB2 gets that for over 6-7 years without EB3 getting anything? That is not fair and if that's what the law says, it has to be revisited. I am saying give 75% or even 90% to EB2 and make sure you clear EB3 with PD as old 2001 and 2002. That is being human. They deserve a GC as much as an EB2 with 2007 (and I am not saying that EB3 2007 deserves as much as an EB2 2007).

    Bottom line, EB3 (or for that matter any category) can't be asked to wait endlessly just because there are some smart kids in another queue! We can come up with a better format of the letter; we can change our strategy to address this issue; we do not have to talk about EB2 and mention only our problems. We want EB3 queue to move.

    "Should" has no place in this. That is your opinion. A lot of things should happen in my view, that does not mean they are the law. It would be rather presumptous of us to tell the US legislators or Gov't how things "should" be.

    The laws are made the way they are for a reason, that is what US lawmakers consider to be in the best interest of their country. As for the spillover question, what is clear is that the real shaft was on Eb2I for the past 2 yrs, when all the spillover was erroneously going to EB3ROW. Eb3I was nor is in contention for those numbers. Sadly for EB3I, the country is oversubscribed and that too in a lesser priority category.

    Write this letter if you must, but it will cause the EB3 community to lose credibility with a lot of people, including the executive branch. They do not respond well to illogical letters and those that second guess their right to set the laws as they wish. It will turn out to be a massive distraction and turn into a joke.

    The focus of the EB3 community should be squarely on visa recapture. Technically that will help EB3I the most. Those affected most stand to gain the most as well. Failing this, I am not sure anything you guys do will make an iota of difference.



    more...

    house %IMG_DESC_17% . %IMG_DESC_13%
  • %IMG_DESC_13%


  • Marphad
    12-18 10:34 AM
    People write bad words all the time.
    What to do? Its like a flu shot. You feel feverish for a while and then you are immune.

    Why don't that junglee come forward in talk in forum? I know why, coz this what they are taught at home, at school in their society to use bad words for mothers and sisters. These kind of people are supporters of Kasab, Afzal Guru etc....




    tattoo %IMG_DESC_6% . %IMG_DESC_14%
  • %IMG_DESC_14%


  • CreatedToday
    01-06 04:21 PM
    :confused:You don't believe this, but you believed when mullahs said, it was Israel and Jews behind 9/11! LOL

    If its true, why media is not showing how Hamas is hiding behind schools and mosques? Its a big lie and this is what they say in order to justify the killing. Also what rockets you are talking about? Those 7000 rockets that killed 4 people? I agree Hamas must stop their mindless and useless rocket attack.



    more...

    pictures %IMG_DESC_7% . %IMG_DESC_15%
  • %IMG_DESC_15%


  • AbraKaDabra
    11-15 10:56 AM
    This guy changes sides based on the audience, check out his latest rhetoric, looks like he is feeling the heat from the results of the current elections:

    ...Zakaria refers to "CNN's Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes" and Jonathan Alter describes those who agree with me as "nativist Lou Dobbsians." But Alter and Zakaria are far too bright to not know better. I've never once called for a restriction on legal immigration -- in fact, I've called for an increase, if it can be demonstrated that as a matter of public policy the nation requires more than the one million people we bring into this country legally each year.....

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html




    dresses %IMG_DESC_12% . %IMG_DESC_16%
  • %IMG_DESC_16%


  • rsdang
    08-29 11:52 AM
    The Indian Chief proclaims, "So, you are the great Lone Ranger. In honor of the Harvest Festival, you will be executed in three days. But, before I kill you, I will grant you three requests


    What is your first request?"

    The Lone Ranger responds, "I'd like to speak to my horse."

    The Chief nods and Silver is brought before the Lone Ranger, who whispers in Silver's ear and the horse gallops away. Later that evening, Silver returns with a beautiful blonde woman on his back.
    As the Indian Chief watches, the blonde enters the Lone Ranger's tent and spends the night. !

    The next morning the Indian Chief admits he's impressed. "You have a very fine and loyal horse but I will still kill you in two days. What is your second request?"

    The Lone Ranger again asks to speak to his horse. Silver is brought to him, and he again whispers in the horse's ear. As before, Silver takes off across the plains and disappears over the horizon.
    Later that evening, to the Chief's surprise, Silver again returns, this time with a brunette, even more attractive than the blonde. She enters the Lone Ranger's tent and spends the night.

    The following morning the Indian Chief is again impressed. ! "You are indeed a man of many talents but I still kill you tomorrow. "What is your last request?"

    The Lone Ranger responds, "I'd like to speak to my horse....alone."

    The Chief is curious but he agrees and Silver is brought to the Lone Ranger's tent.

    Once they're alone, the Lone Ranger grabs Silver by both ears, looks him square in the eye and says, ; "Listen very carefully you dumb ass horse. For the last time . . . BRING POSSEE".



    more...

    makeup %IMG_DESC_9% . %IMG_DESC_17%
  • %IMG_DESC_17%


  • alisa
    04-07 01:23 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.

    You hit the nail in the head.

    Instead of getting rid of all H1B employees in one full swoop, this lobby wants to put law in place where new H1s will be mostly rejected due the "Consulting clause" and existing H1 employees will be hit in the head with a 2 X 4 when renewing H1, since the scrutiny and paperwork is the same for new H1, H1 extensions and H1 transfers. Same LCA filing, same I-129 forms.

    So instead of immediate purge, this is like getting rid of 5 to 10 thousand each month by making extensions and renewals and transfer impossible for those doing the consulting.

    Like the admin said, this is the slow bleed of H1B program where death is slow but not obvious and easily detectable.




    girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14% . %IMG_DESC_18%
  • %IMG_DESC_18%


  • Macaca
    05-12 05:53 PM
    A Right of All Citizens
    Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
    By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic

    The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.

    The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�

    Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.

    Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�

    Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.

    The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�

    The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.

    In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.

    Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.

    Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)


    What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
    Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
    Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
    The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
    Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
    Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
    Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial




    hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11% . %IMG_DESC_19%
  • %IMG_DESC_19%


  • s_r_e_e
    08-25 06:40 PM
    keeep going.. we need this :)




    senthil1
    12-17 02:27 PM
    It is true that 99.99% of Muslims are not terrorists. But 99.99% of World's hardcore terrorists are Muslims.


    What has this to do with immigration ??? Does Antulay support EB2/EB3 reforms ? Do he mention anything about wasted visa numbers.
    This is not a place to post/preach religious, spiritual believes unless it gets you the Green Card. If many Indians visit this forum, it does not become hosting agent for your thoughts. Now don't waste your time and server hard disk space posting something back on this thread.




    gondalguru
    07-08 07:10 PM
    I agree with you. I am also of the opinion that July Fiasco has actually helped India and China (oversubscribed countries). USCIS might have approved tons of EB2 and EB3 (India and China) applications to use those 60,000 visa numbers. So, India and China might have got a big pie of the 140,000 EB visas.

    With that said I also felt the pain as other members did due to the July bulletin fiasco.

    Good to hear that as I am EB2 India with PD 09/2004. Where will EB2 India be in October 07?

    Diversity is preferred over Skills and hence there is per country limit at 7%. Many of my colleagues have got their GC being ROW EB2 (from srilanka, nepal, pakistan) and I am very happy for them but at the same time I feel frustrated and disappointed at the system as it discriminates you using your nationality. Nobody can control where they are born then why should they be discriminated based on that factor????



    No comments:

    Post a Comment