amsgc
07-15 12:01 AM
Pani,
I think there will be legislation; if not in the next few months, then next year for sure. Note that the movement in EB2-I has been at the cost of EB2-China and EB3-ROW. Also, there are too many people stuck in EB2 as well, so this movement in PDs will come back to a more realistic level pretty soon. I reckon there will be another push after the elections. My only worry is that our provisions will get all mixed up and confused with those of undocumented workers. This was the best time for us - it is indeed very frustrating to see less than 200 people who make the calls out of an apparant sea of half a million(i am begining to doubt that number now). Only 200 made a contribution to keep this organization strong. what can you really expect? Some of us are just stuck with a large number of people who don't want their GC bad enough.
Anyway. Come October, many of us will be where we are today. We just have to convince the lawmakers to pass some piecemeal legislation that will give relief across the board - bills like the Lofgren bills is the answer.
I am not sure what the USCIS can do in this regard - they are limited by the law and the numbers. The most we can expect from them is admin fixes where they relax/remove the requirement of a "job offer", give a temp. green card etc. etc.
I think there will be legislation; if not in the next few months, then next year for sure. Note that the movement in EB2-I has been at the cost of EB2-China and EB3-ROW. Also, there are too many people stuck in EB2 as well, so this movement in PDs will come back to a more realistic level pretty soon. I reckon there will be another push after the elections. My only worry is that our provisions will get all mixed up and confused with those of undocumented workers. This was the best time for us - it is indeed very frustrating to see less than 200 people who make the calls out of an apparant sea of half a million(i am begining to doubt that number now). Only 200 made a contribution to keep this organization strong. what can you really expect? Some of us are just stuck with a large number of people who don't want their GC bad enough.
Anyway. Come October, many of us will be where we are today. We just have to convince the lawmakers to pass some piecemeal legislation that will give relief across the board - bills like the Lofgren bills is the answer.
I am not sure what the USCIS can do in this regard - they are limited by the law and the numbers. The most we can expect from them is admin fixes where they relax/remove the requirement of a "job offer", give a temp. green card etc. etc.
wallpaper resume samples
Macaca
05-27 05:26 PM
Immigration: You can't rely on E-Verify (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-arizona-20110527,0,7225123.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that permits local officials to revoke the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. The decision makes sense in principle but not in practice.
Under the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, business owners are required to use the federal E-Verify program to confirm if a person is authorized to work in this country. Employers must electronically check workers' names against databases kept by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Workers found to be ineligible have up to eight working days to straighten out the problem before employers would be required to fire them. If a company is found to have knowingly hired an undocumented worker once, it can have its licenses suspended; twice, the company may be shut down.
The problem with the Arizona statute is not that it penalizes employers who break the law. Businesses that hire undocumented immigrants should face fines or sanctions, as called for under current federal law (although many would disagree with the court's conclusion that states may impose such penalties). The problem is that the law relies on E-Verify, which isn't ready for prime time.
Until now, E-Verify has generally been used on a voluntary basis by employers because of concerns about its accuracy. Conservative estimates put the program's error rate at just under 1% � meaning that one out of every 100 legal job applicants could be found ineligible to work. Nearly half of those will not be able to fix the problem even though they are citizens or legal workers, according to the National Immigration Law Center. The reality is that the error rate may be much higher. Consider that in 2008, Intel Corp. reported that just over 12% of its workers were wrongly tagged as ineligible, according to the Migration Policy Center in Washington. Or that a survey by Los Angeles County of employees found an error rate of 2.7 in 2008 and 2.0 in 2009, according to a report submitted to the Board of Supervisors. The error rate is especially high in cities with large immigrant communities.
Furthermore, E-Verify doesn't detect identity theft or prevent unscrupulous employers from moving their workforce off the books. Nor does the law guarantee employers that they will be immune from losing their licenses if E-Verify mistakenly allows them to hire an undocumented worker. That lack of protection may, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted in his dissent, persuade some business owners to avoid hiring those who look or sound foreign-born.
At the very least, the court's ruling should prompt the Obama administration to act quickly to fix E-Verify and improve its accuracy. And the White House should seek a qualified candidate to serve as the Justice Department's special counsel in charge of enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the immigration law.
But the court's ruling doesn't fix the bigger problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Arizona and other states that have passed similar measures are stumbling to create their own immigration laws because the current system isn't working. Thursday's decision should put Washington on notice that in the absence of a federal solution, states will step in to fill the void.
D.C. region�s Asian population is up 60 percent since 2000, census data show (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-regions-asian-population-is-up-60-percent-since-2000-census-data-show/2011/05/25/AGvgndBH_story.html) By Carol Morello and Dan Keating | The Washington Post
A Bond for the Homeland (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/24/a_bond_for_the_homeland) By NGOZI OKONJO-IWEALA, DILIP RATHA | Foreign Policy
More People, Please
Don't worry about the booming global population -- celebrate it. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/23/more_people_please)
By | Foreign Policy
How Latinos Got Stung (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/22/how_latinos_got_stung_109943.html) By Ruben Navarrette | Denver Post
What immigrants contribute (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-immigrants-contribute/2011/05/19/AFjy9L9G_story.html) By Alejandro Becerra | The Washington Post
Secure Communities program: A flawed deportation tool (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-secure-20110523,0,4886580.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that permits local officials to revoke the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. The decision makes sense in principle but not in practice.
Under the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, business owners are required to use the federal E-Verify program to confirm if a person is authorized to work in this country. Employers must electronically check workers' names against databases kept by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Workers found to be ineligible have up to eight working days to straighten out the problem before employers would be required to fire them. If a company is found to have knowingly hired an undocumented worker once, it can have its licenses suspended; twice, the company may be shut down.
The problem with the Arizona statute is not that it penalizes employers who break the law. Businesses that hire undocumented immigrants should face fines or sanctions, as called for under current federal law (although many would disagree with the court's conclusion that states may impose such penalties). The problem is that the law relies on E-Verify, which isn't ready for prime time.
Until now, E-Verify has generally been used on a voluntary basis by employers because of concerns about its accuracy. Conservative estimates put the program's error rate at just under 1% � meaning that one out of every 100 legal job applicants could be found ineligible to work. Nearly half of those will not be able to fix the problem even though they are citizens or legal workers, according to the National Immigration Law Center. The reality is that the error rate may be much higher. Consider that in 2008, Intel Corp. reported that just over 12% of its workers were wrongly tagged as ineligible, according to the Migration Policy Center in Washington. Or that a survey by Los Angeles County of employees found an error rate of 2.7 in 2008 and 2.0 in 2009, according to a report submitted to the Board of Supervisors. The error rate is especially high in cities with large immigrant communities.
Furthermore, E-Verify doesn't detect identity theft or prevent unscrupulous employers from moving their workforce off the books. Nor does the law guarantee employers that they will be immune from losing their licenses if E-Verify mistakenly allows them to hire an undocumented worker. That lack of protection may, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted in his dissent, persuade some business owners to avoid hiring those who look or sound foreign-born.
At the very least, the court's ruling should prompt the Obama administration to act quickly to fix E-Verify and improve its accuracy. And the White House should seek a qualified candidate to serve as the Justice Department's special counsel in charge of enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the immigration law.
But the court's ruling doesn't fix the bigger problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Arizona and other states that have passed similar measures are stumbling to create their own immigration laws because the current system isn't working. Thursday's decision should put Washington on notice that in the absence of a federal solution, states will step in to fill the void.
D.C. region�s Asian population is up 60 percent since 2000, census data show (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-regions-asian-population-is-up-60-percent-since-2000-census-data-show/2011/05/25/AGvgndBH_story.html) By Carol Morello and Dan Keating | The Washington Post
A Bond for the Homeland (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/24/a_bond_for_the_homeland) By NGOZI OKONJO-IWEALA, DILIP RATHA | Foreign Policy
More People, Please
Don't worry about the booming global population -- celebrate it. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/23/more_people_please)
By | Foreign Policy
How Latinos Got Stung (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/22/how_latinos_got_stung_109943.html) By Ruben Navarrette | Denver Post
What immigrants contribute (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-immigrants-contribute/2011/05/19/AFjy9L9G_story.html) By Alejandro Becerra | The Washington Post
Secure Communities program: A flawed deportation tool (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-secure-20110523,0,4886580.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
mariner5555
03-23 11:14 PM
I agree he will loose his down payment or credit score in case of things going south on GC side but still he will be able to do whatever is best for his long term goals now and he will be better off in terms of equity when real estate market bounces back in 3-4 years.There are lucrative deals in the market and renting does not make any sense. There is always a risk factor and u can cover your risks accordingly. Anywaz What exactly ur going to do with Credit Score after u are kicked out from here ? So why not take risk now and play the game.
why do you say that renting does not make any sense ?? credit score would matter if a person gets a better oppurtunity and decides to come back - screwing up yr credit is like burning a bridge. In my humble opinion real estate won't bounce back - it may limp back in majority of the areas. ofcourse housing is local ..
why do you say that renting does not make any sense ?? credit score would matter if a person gets a better oppurtunity and decides to come back - screwing up yr credit is like burning a bridge. In my humble opinion real estate won't bounce back - it may limp back in majority of the areas. ofcourse housing is local ..
2011 Acting Resume Template
gchopes
06-23 12:22 PM
If you are worried about 485 getting denied then -
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
more...
akred
06-24 12:04 AM
I am shocked to see the HOA cost in CA, Why is HOA so high there, Obviously CA does not get snow like East coast for 4-6 months, so snow mowing and salt sprinkling(which is expensive) is ruled out.
Just to mow lawn, gardening and keeping tab on overall resident development you pay $400/month..Thats ridiculously high...BTW,I am not from CA, excuse my ignorance.
HOA dues depend on many factors. The community may have maintenance or upkeep expenses that are out of the ordinary. Or the board may be building up reserves for future expenses that may be as much as 25 years down the line. Sometimes the board is dysfunctional and will take the easy way out of charging more dues instead of optimizing expenses.
Before you buy into a HOA, get the minutes of the last year's board meetings and read through them to see if it is the kind of place you'd want to live in.
Just to mow lawn, gardening and keeping tab on overall resident development you pay $400/month..Thats ridiculously high...BTW,I am not from CA, excuse my ignorance.
HOA dues depend on many factors. The community may have maintenance or upkeep expenses that are out of the ordinary. Or the board may be building up reserves for future expenses that may be as much as 25 years down the line. Sometimes the board is dysfunctional and will take the easy way out of charging more dues instead of optimizing expenses.
Before you buy into a HOA, get the minutes of the last year's board meetings and read through them to see if it is the kind of place you'd want to live in.
gcisadawg
01-07 04:49 PM
From the wikipedia:
As of October 13, 2006, the Gujarat High Court ruled formation of UC Banerjee committee "illegal" and "unconstitutional". As of now all its probe results stand invalid.
Thanks for the link, that is exactly my point. One committee/institution comes up with one story and another one denies it. It goes on and on till the common man forget the whole thing. And then a new issue comes up..
Lets wait and see how 'Supreme Court' appointed R.K Raghavan commission plays out.
As of October 13, 2006, the Gujarat High Court ruled formation of UC Banerjee committee "illegal" and "unconstitutional". As of now all its probe results stand invalid.
Thanks for the link, that is exactly my point. One committee/institution comes up with one story and another one denies it. It goes on and on till the common man forget the whole thing. And then a new issue comes up..
Lets wait and see how 'Supreme Court' appointed R.K Raghavan commission plays out.
more...
GC_US_64
12-26 05:08 PM
CNBC. They are also airing a programme on immigration at 8pm eastern.
2010 Food Service Resume Examples
puddonhead
06-05 04:42 PM
>> But going with the spirit of my original post, in the long run, the equity you build (15K/yr) will far out weigh the yearly savings you get by renting.
You are right in 90% of cases - where people will otherwise spend the money and not save it.
If you have a mortgage - you are "forced" to save because the monthly amortization automatically builds equity. If you are renting - you are not "forced" to save that amount - and hence would probably be spent (in my case) in a gaming machine with I7 processor (which has NO long term value).
However, in the hypothetical 10% scenario (in case of immigrants, specially Indians, my gut feel is that it is significantly more than 10%) - where the amount is saved in some sort of investment vehicle instead of being frittered away - you would come out ahead in the long term.
You are right in 90% of cases - where people will otherwise spend the money and not save it.
If you have a mortgage - you are "forced" to save because the monthly amortization automatically builds equity. If you are renting - you are not "forced" to save that amount - and hence would probably be spent (in my case) in a gaming machine with I7 processor (which has NO long term value).
However, in the hypothetical 10% scenario (in case of immigrants, specially Indians, my gut feel is that it is significantly more than 10%) - where the amount is saved in some sort of investment vehicle instead of being frittered away - you would come out ahead in the long term.
more...
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.
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.
hair simple resume format sample.
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.�
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...
gcisadawg
01-03 02:20 AM
My dad was a never govt employee but I'm sad that Govt folks were so much underpaid!
When they get bribes, why bother about pay? Sorry, I've no respect for these low lifes who take bribe and make common man run from pillar to post.
When they get bribes, why bother about pay? Sorry, I've no respect for these low lifes who take bribe and make common man run from pillar to post.
hot Professional looking Resume
paskal
07-15 03:07 AM
Thanks. I will look into it further when I get a chance. the number of GC granted in a year is complicated- and for the moment I speak offhand so correct me if needed. Till 2005, the recapture clouded the numbers. After that EB3 benefited from a Schedule A recapture that went almost entirely to EB3, a lot to EB3 Philipenes and a good chunk to EB3 India.
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
sc3,
here are the allotments as posted elsewhere.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 (EB India allocations)
------------------------------------
EB1 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
Continuing on what i said- till 2005 there was recapture. 2006 reflects what would happen with a vertical spillover for both EB2 and 3 India- about 3,000 GC a year. In 2007, both (esp EB3I) struck pay dirt because everyone became current in July. Under a situation where all categories are current, Gc are distributed exclusively by RD and country quota is thrown out of the window. That is why so many GC were given to EB3 I last year- it makes sense because this is the largest waiting group.
However July 07 is not coming back. If vertical spillover continues, 2006 will become the reality. In that situation the waits for both EB2 and EB3 India will be simply indefinite. Unfortunately for EB3 I, they are indefinite either way- UNLESS we get more GC numbers.
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
sc3,
here are the allotments as posted elsewhere.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 (EB India allocations)
------------------------------------
EB1 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
Continuing on what i said- till 2005 there was recapture. 2006 reflects what would happen with a vertical spillover for both EB2 and 3 India- about 3,000 GC a year. In 2007, both (esp EB3I) struck pay dirt because everyone became current in July. Under a situation where all categories are current, Gc are distributed exclusively by RD and country quota is thrown out of the window. That is why so many GC were given to EB3 I last year- it makes sense because this is the largest waiting group.
However July 07 is not coming back. If vertical spillover continues, 2006 will become the reality. In that situation the waits for both EB2 and EB3 India will be simply indefinite. Unfortunately for EB3 I, they are indefinite either way- UNLESS we get more GC numbers.
more...
house blank resume templates.
Macaca
12-30 04:19 PM
But today, as the year ends, the netroots activists who adored Reid at the start of the new Congress have begun turning on him, musing out loud about encouraging senators to oust him as leader. They complained that Reid's Senate caved - allowing continued tax breaks for oil companies, approving a new attorney general who wouldn't call waterboarding torture, breaking the pay-as-you go promise by approving a tax break without a tax hike on the rich.
Some liberal lawmakers believe the way to accomplish their goals is for Reid to put even more pressure on Republicans to break. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Reid should do more to "highlight who's obstructing."
"The one issue people have with Harry Reid, he's not embarrassing enough people," Frank said.
Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate politics for The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm in Washington, said the problem for Democrats isn't that they haven't delivered much more than the Republicans.
"It's that voters don't see a difference," Duffy said. "Voters are coming to the conclusion the parties are the same - not philosophically the same, but they conduct themselves in the same way."
Trying to end a war
Six weeks into the new Congress, as the promises of comity began to fade, Reid pulled a dramatic maneuver: He kept the Senate in session over Presidents Day weekend for a Saturday vote on Iraq.
Nine Republicans failed to show up, including Nevada's John Ensign, who was back home playing golf with his son. The Republican whip, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, praised the absences, saying the senators were right to gum up a vote that his side saw as a stunt.
The measure opposing Bush's troop surge failed to get 60 votes needed to advance. But it helped set the stage for a poisoned atmosphere that would dominate the Iraq debate for the year.
The Senate conducted 34 votes on Iraq. Only once did a measure to bring troops home succeed. Bush vetoed it.
Critics say Reid spent too much time on Iraq, that it became personal. He called it "Bush's war" and "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country."
By spring, as it became clear he could not find enough votes to override the president on Iraq votes, he embraced the party's left wing by putting his name on a bill to cut off troop funds.
Vote after vote only hardened Republicans' resolve.
Anti-war activists grew furious with Reid. All the while, the clock ticked down and other business went undone.
"If you're going to criticize him, you can criticize him for allocating so much floor time to the debate when it was pretty clear it wasn't going to accomplish anything," Mann said. "And you can criticize him for his emotional investment."
Could Reid really have stopped trying? Opinion polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans continue to oppose the war.
The real question is whether Reid missed an opportunity to broker middle ground. As Republicans started speaking out against Bush's war policy in the summer months, Reid failed to entertain a more moderate bill - one without a withdrawal deadline - that could have peeled Republicans away from Bush.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a tough reelection in 2008, said she finds it "frustrating that those of us who were trying to find a bipartisan path forward on Iraq were unable to get votes on our proposals. I think there was an opportunity to change the course in Iraq, and to send a strong message to the president about the future direction, but that opportunity was lost."
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University who has written extensively on Congress, said leaders are judged by the choices they make. In his view, Reid made a mistake.
"The criticism the Democrats have been facing is they weren't aggressive enough," Zelizer said. "I think the bigger failure was that he didn't get something more moderate through. I think it would have been a blow to the administration."
By fall the mood in Congress shifted as news from Iraq improved. The moment had passed. Before Congress left for the holidays, lawmakers approved another war funding bill, with no strings attached.
"Great leaders realize there are just moments, windows of opportunity," Zelizer said, "and I think he missed."
Reid remains optimistic about his chances for securing Republican support in 2008. "We're going to continue putting the pedal to the metal," he said at his year-end news conference.
But the Democrats and Reid are clearly trying to find their way under the new terms of the Iraq debate.
Endgame
The Senate chaplain, a retired Navy rear admiral, opens each day's business with a prayer. On the last Monday of the session, he called on God to remind the senators "that ultimately they will be judged by their productivity."
The Senate had become gridlocked. Reid had threatened to do cartwheels down the aisle if it would help shake things loose.
Democrats had accomplished plenty this year - raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, adopting the most sweeping ethics laws since Watergate, crafting the greatest college loan assistance program since the GI bill, increasing automotive fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years and providing unprecedented oversight of the Bush administration, leading to the resignation of the beleaguered attorney general.
Congress worked more days than in any session in years.
But all that seemed overshadowed by what it couldn't do. Stop the war. Provide health care for working-class kids. Address global warming by rolling back oil companies' tax breaks. Start a renewable energy requirement. End the torture of war prisoners.
Even passing the budget to keep the government running seemed dicey.
"It's been a really lousy year," said Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
In this hyper-partisan environment, where Reid liked to say Republicans were conducting "filibusters on steroids," could another kind of majority leader have achieved better results?
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was among those leading efforts to provide children's health insurance, said if not for Reid, the State Children's Health Care bill known as SCHIP wouldn't have progressed as far as it did.
Dozens of Republicans crossed party lines to back the bill, which polls show was supported by 70 percent of Americans. Children's health care would have been paid for by increasing the tax on cigarettes. Bush vetoed the bill twice.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said even if "God himself" were in the majority leader's job, it would not have been a match for Republican obstructionism. Mann sums up Reid this way: "Were Tom Daschle and George Mitchell sort of smoother, were they more effective with the Washington press? You betcha. Could they make a more compelling, favorable case? Yes. Would either of them operating in this environment have a much more productive record? No."
By the office fireplace again
People say running the Senate is like herding cats, with 100 Type-A personalities going in every direction. But watching the Senate feels more like being at a baseball game - so much drama happens between the big home runs and base hits, even when it looks like nothing is going on at all.
The fire continues to burn strongly in Reid's office as snow covers the Capitol grounds. The workday is coming to a close. The Senate adjourns earlier than usual, without having taken a single roll-call vote. Christmas is almost here, and countless bills still needed to pass.
Reid is not one for regrets, or for comparing himself to those who held the office before his arrival.
"I can't be an Everett Dirksen, I don't have his long white hair, I don't have his voice. I can't be Mike Mansfield, I don't smoke a pipe," he says. "I just have to be who I am."
Reid's home state has benefited substantially from his rise to the majority leader's job, as Nevada has enjoyed financial and political gains from being home to arguably the nation's top elected Democrat.
But on the national stage Reid sees little more he can do when faced with Senate Republicans willing to stand beside Bush, even as they're "being marched over a cliff" for the next election.
He recalls his first alone time with Bush, years ago. "He was so nice, 'I'll work with you, try to get along with Democrats.' That's Orwellian talk. Because everything he said to me personally was just the opposite ... This is not Harry Reid talking, this is history.
"I try to be pleasant, he tries to be pleasant," Reid continued, "but there's an underlying tension there because he knows how I feel, that he's let down the American people by being a divider, not a uniter."
He holds no hard feelings against Pelosi for setting an ambitious agenda. "Next year she will better understand the Senate than she did this year."
In 2008 he has two legislative goals: "I would like to get us out of Iraq," he said. "I'd like to establish something to give Americans, Nevadans, the ability to go to a doctor when they're sick."
And one day, when this job is done, "I wouldn't mind being manager of a baseball team."
Some liberal lawmakers believe the way to accomplish their goals is for Reid to put even more pressure on Republicans to break. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Reid should do more to "highlight who's obstructing."
"The one issue people have with Harry Reid, he's not embarrassing enough people," Frank said.
Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate politics for The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm in Washington, said the problem for Democrats isn't that they haven't delivered much more than the Republicans.
"It's that voters don't see a difference," Duffy said. "Voters are coming to the conclusion the parties are the same - not philosophically the same, but they conduct themselves in the same way."
Trying to end a war
Six weeks into the new Congress, as the promises of comity began to fade, Reid pulled a dramatic maneuver: He kept the Senate in session over Presidents Day weekend for a Saturday vote on Iraq.
Nine Republicans failed to show up, including Nevada's John Ensign, who was back home playing golf with his son. The Republican whip, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, praised the absences, saying the senators were right to gum up a vote that his side saw as a stunt.
The measure opposing Bush's troop surge failed to get 60 votes needed to advance. But it helped set the stage for a poisoned atmosphere that would dominate the Iraq debate for the year.
The Senate conducted 34 votes on Iraq. Only once did a measure to bring troops home succeed. Bush vetoed it.
Critics say Reid spent too much time on Iraq, that it became personal. He called it "Bush's war" and "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country."
By spring, as it became clear he could not find enough votes to override the president on Iraq votes, he embraced the party's left wing by putting his name on a bill to cut off troop funds.
Vote after vote only hardened Republicans' resolve.
Anti-war activists grew furious with Reid. All the while, the clock ticked down and other business went undone.
"If you're going to criticize him, you can criticize him for allocating so much floor time to the debate when it was pretty clear it wasn't going to accomplish anything," Mann said. "And you can criticize him for his emotional investment."
Could Reid really have stopped trying? Opinion polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans continue to oppose the war.
The real question is whether Reid missed an opportunity to broker middle ground. As Republicans started speaking out against Bush's war policy in the summer months, Reid failed to entertain a more moderate bill - one without a withdrawal deadline - that could have peeled Republicans away from Bush.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a tough reelection in 2008, said she finds it "frustrating that those of us who were trying to find a bipartisan path forward on Iraq were unable to get votes on our proposals. I think there was an opportunity to change the course in Iraq, and to send a strong message to the president about the future direction, but that opportunity was lost."
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University who has written extensively on Congress, said leaders are judged by the choices they make. In his view, Reid made a mistake.
"The criticism the Democrats have been facing is they weren't aggressive enough," Zelizer said. "I think the bigger failure was that he didn't get something more moderate through. I think it would have been a blow to the administration."
By fall the mood in Congress shifted as news from Iraq improved. The moment had passed. Before Congress left for the holidays, lawmakers approved another war funding bill, with no strings attached.
"Great leaders realize there are just moments, windows of opportunity," Zelizer said, "and I think he missed."
Reid remains optimistic about his chances for securing Republican support in 2008. "We're going to continue putting the pedal to the metal," he said at his year-end news conference.
But the Democrats and Reid are clearly trying to find their way under the new terms of the Iraq debate.
Endgame
The Senate chaplain, a retired Navy rear admiral, opens each day's business with a prayer. On the last Monday of the session, he called on God to remind the senators "that ultimately they will be judged by their productivity."
The Senate had become gridlocked. Reid had threatened to do cartwheels down the aisle if it would help shake things loose.
Democrats had accomplished plenty this year - raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, adopting the most sweeping ethics laws since Watergate, crafting the greatest college loan assistance program since the GI bill, increasing automotive fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years and providing unprecedented oversight of the Bush administration, leading to the resignation of the beleaguered attorney general.
Congress worked more days than in any session in years.
But all that seemed overshadowed by what it couldn't do. Stop the war. Provide health care for working-class kids. Address global warming by rolling back oil companies' tax breaks. Start a renewable energy requirement. End the torture of war prisoners.
Even passing the budget to keep the government running seemed dicey.
"It's been a really lousy year," said Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
In this hyper-partisan environment, where Reid liked to say Republicans were conducting "filibusters on steroids," could another kind of majority leader have achieved better results?
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was among those leading efforts to provide children's health insurance, said if not for Reid, the State Children's Health Care bill known as SCHIP wouldn't have progressed as far as it did.
Dozens of Republicans crossed party lines to back the bill, which polls show was supported by 70 percent of Americans. Children's health care would have been paid for by increasing the tax on cigarettes. Bush vetoed the bill twice.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said even if "God himself" were in the majority leader's job, it would not have been a match for Republican obstructionism. Mann sums up Reid this way: "Were Tom Daschle and George Mitchell sort of smoother, were they more effective with the Washington press? You betcha. Could they make a more compelling, favorable case? Yes. Would either of them operating in this environment have a much more productive record? No."
By the office fireplace again
People say running the Senate is like herding cats, with 100 Type-A personalities going in every direction. But watching the Senate feels more like being at a baseball game - so much drama happens between the big home runs and base hits, even when it looks like nothing is going on at all.
The fire continues to burn strongly in Reid's office as snow covers the Capitol grounds. The workday is coming to a close. The Senate adjourns earlier than usual, without having taken a single roll-call vote. Christmas is almost here, and countless bills still needed to pass.
Reid is not one for regrets, or for comparing himself to those who held the office before his arrival.
"I can't be an Everett Dirksen, I don't have his long white hair, I don't have his voice. I can't be Mike Mansfield, I don't smoke a pipe," he says. "I just have to be who I am."
Reid's home state has benefited substantially from his rise to the majority leader's job, as Nevada has enjoyed financial and political gains from being home to arguably the nation's top elected Democrat.
But on the national stage Reid sees little more he can do when faced with Senate Republicans willing to stand beside Bush, even as they're "being marched over a cliff" for the next election.
He recalls his first alone time with Bush, years ago. "He was so nice, 'I'll work with you, try to get along with Democrats.' That's Orwellian talk. Because everything he said to me personally was just the opposite ... This is not Harry Reid talking, this is history.
"I try to be pleasant, he tries to be pleasant," Reid continued, "but there's an underlying tension there because he knows how I feel, that he's let down the American people by being a divider, not a uniter."
He holds no hard feelings against Pelosi for setting an ambitious agenda. "Next year she will better understand the Senate than she did this year."
In 2008 he has two legislative goals: "I would like to get us out of Iraq," he said. "I'd like to establish something to give Americans, Nevadans, the ability to go to a doctor when they're sick."
And one day, when this job is done, "I wouldn't mind being manager of a baseball team."
tattoo Marketing resume template
ohpdfeb2003
06-27 01:50 PM
nothing you have said below answers my question. In 30 years if u are paying 1500 for rent that is 540,000 that is gone. Instead if you used that money to pay the interest, you canclaim that 540,000 as a deductible. Let me say it slowly so u can understand.
540,000 of rent nets you zero in 30 years.
540,000 paid towards interest makes it a deductible. That is the difference. In the 28% tax bracket you receive an extra 5,040 a year in your tax refund. But if you are renting you receive zero. That amounts to 28% of that money u lose renting which is a whopping 151,200 in 30 years which is huge.
Again let me repeat 30 year rent of 1500/month is 540,000 down the drain. As a renter toy claim to save money while u are losing 1500/month. As an owner that 1500 goes to interet which I can get back 28% every year. You don't.
I'm not even calculating principal here.
When you rent the amount you save is the same as the principal+equity+property value of my home and savings combined. And in that case after 30 years i managed to get something back with that money you lose in rent. Even if u rent for 30 years the home you mightve wanted to buy 30 years ago at 400,000 is now 800,000. You cannot Afford to buy it anymore. And on top of that you blew 540,000 renting. I blew 540,000 on interest but guess what? I got 151,200 of that amount back in tax returns.
Why can you not see that? Your arguments do not display any financial sound to renting other than you like to throw 1500 a month away.
Looks like you dont read all the posts. Taxdeduction of mortgage interest is overrated. Everyone gets a standard deduction, not all your interest is tax dedcutible, only the difference between your interest payment and standard deduction if any( every one gets standard deduction:D).
so you thought you saved 151,200 in mortgage interest but guess what you arent even saving half of that. Renter's have the downpayment money invested elsewhere thats making more than inflation:) to cover more than the difference you saved
540,000 of rent nets you zero in 30 years.
540,000 paid towards interest makes it a deductible. That is the difference. In the 28% tax bracket you receive an extra 5,040 a year in your tax refund. But if you are renting you receive zero. That amounts to 28% of that money u lose renting which is a whopping 151,200 in 30 years which is huge.
Again let me repeat 30 year rent of 1500/month is 540,000 down the drain. As a renter toy claim to save money while u are losing 1500/month. As an owner that 1500 goes to interet which I can get back 28% every year. You don't.
I'm not even calculating principal here.
When you rent the amount you save is the same as the principal+equity+property value of my home and savings combined. And in that case after 30 years i managed to get something back with that money you lose in rent. Even if u rent for 30 years the home you mightve wanted to buy 30 years ago at 400,000 is now 800,000. You cannot Afford to buy it anymore. And on top of that you blew 540,000 renting. I blew 540,000 on interest but guess what? I got 151,200 of that amount back in tax returns.
Why can you not see that? Your arguments do not display any financial sound to renting other than you like to throw 1500 a month away.
Looks like you dont read all the posts. Taxdeduction of mortgage interest is overrated. Everyone gets a standard deduction, not all your interest is tax dedcutible, only the difference between your interest payment and standard deduction if any( every one gets standard deduction:D).
so you thought you saved 151,200 in mortgage interest but guess what you arent even saving half of that. Renter's have the downpayment money invested elsewhere thats making more than inflation:) to cover more than the difference you saved
more...
pictures Resume Examples to quickly
rsdang
08-22 11:59 AM
new lecturer (also a Bihari professor) was unable to control the class. The guys were just talking without giving any attention to him. So he wanted to send a guy who was creating most of the problem out. But he doesn't know how to put it in English. He went near the guy. Shouted, "follow me" .The guy followed him till he went out of the class. Now the lecturer turned back and again shouted, "Don't follow me" and went inside the class..........
# Giving a punishment:
*You, rotate the ground four times...
* You, go and under-stand the tree...
* You three of you, stand together separately.
* Why are you late - say YES or NO....(?)
# Sir at his best:
Sir had once gone to a film with his wife. By chance, he happened to see one of our boys at the theatre, though the boy did not see them. So the next day at school... (To that boy) - " Yesterday I saw you WITH MY WIFE at the Cinema Theatre"
# Giving a punishment:
*You, rotate the ground four times...
* You, go and under-stand the tree...
* You three of you, stand together separately.
* Why are you late - say YES or NO....(?)
# Sir at his best:
Sir had once gone to a film with his wife. By chance, he happened to see one of our boys at the theatre, though the boy did not see them. So the next day at school... (To that boy) - " Yesterday I saw you WITH MY WIFE at the Cinema Theatre"
dresses Kids Free template important.
abracadabra102
12-28 10:24 AM
India defeating entire British empire without firing a weapon? Where did this come from? British colonized Indians for 150 years!
If Indians were a military power, they wouldn't have been colonized in the first place.
Do you seriously believe the dogma of non-violence Quit India movement drove the British away?:)
I agree with you. British occupied USA and India at around same time (1600) and USA got it's independence by 1789 and we had to wait until 1947. UK was very badly hurt post second world war and had to borrow money heavily from USA to pay for veterans and keep war time employment rates. Clement Atlee in his wisdom thought that UK can not maintain it's empire any longer and let go of colonies. Winston Churchill was opposed to this but could not prevail over Atlee. I admire Mahatma immensely. But let us not kid ourselves that we got independence solely based on peaceful independence struggle. To all those peaceniks, if you think non-violence is such a great weapon, why can't we scratch the whole army and use that massive defence budget for something else? If we are maintaining an army, we are going to use it some time.
If Indians were a military power, they wouldn't have been colonized in the first place.
Do you seriously believe the dogma of non-violence Quit India movement drove the British away?:)
I agree with you. British occupied USA and India at around same time (1600) and USA got it's independence by 1789 and we had to wait until 1947. UK was very badly hurt post second world war and had to borrow money heavily from USA to pay for veterans and keep war time employment rates. Clement Atlee in his wisdom thought that UK can not maintain it's empire any longer and let go of colonies. Winston Churchill was opposed to this but could not prevail over Atlee. I admire Mahatma immensely. But let us not kid ourselves that we got independence solely based on peaceful independence struggle. To all those peaceniks, if you think non-violence is such a great weapon, why can't we scratch the whole army and use that massive defence budget for something else? If we are maintaining an army, we are going to use it some time.
more...
makeup or resume template.
h1techSlave
12-26 09:59 PM
Like a few of us are pointing out here, a full fledged war between India and Pak is only good for China.
What India should do is
1. Increase internal security. Our performace in tacking those 10-11 guys were pathetic, to put it mildly. Sure it is no mistake of those brave folks who actually fought the terrorists, but India has no political will power to tackle terrorits strongly (neither Indian politicians nor the voters who elect those politicians).
2. Join NATO forces in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. We had earlier turned down invitation from Americans to fight in Afghanistan because our rulers fear the Muslim vote bank. It seems (looking at the Muslim response to latest terror attacks), Indian Muslims also are fed up of the cross border terrorism. So if we join the NATO forces and fight islamists in Afghanistan; on one hand, the jihadis will be weakened and on the other hand, India will not be directly blamed by Muslims all over the world.
My take on this is that there are two options
Option-1:- Go for an all out war as i specified...however the risk here is that it could go on and on and on...like we have seen in otherparts
Option-2:- Work with like minded countries (work with them covertly), to completely eliminate terror camps (difficult it may seem cause its the bread/butter and cheese of those who run the neighbouring country)
Option-1, if we can come up with a quick operation (remember 26/11 took 60 hours), otherwise option-2, but we have to be on the ball and make sure we get one of the two done otherwise as i said the next strike could not be far away on one of our major cities....
Also Option-1 should be directed at the Terror infrastructure (by infrastructure i mean man power included cause otherwise they will disperse and regroup like they do in the western border in the war that the superpower is waging)
What India should do is
1. Increase internal security. Our performace in tacking those 10-11 guys were pathetic, to put it mildly. Sure it is no mistake of those brave folks who actually fought the terrorists, but India has no political will power to tackle terrorits strongly (neither Indian politicians nor the voters who elect those politicians).
2. Join NATO forces in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. We had earlier turned down invitation from Americans to fight in Afghanistan because our rulers fear the Muslim vote bank. It seems (looking at the Muslim response to latest terror attacks), Indian Muslims also are fed up of the cross border terrorism. So if we join the NATO forces and fight islamists in Afghanistan; on one hand, the jihadis will be weakened and on the other hand, India will not be directly blamed by Muslims all over the world.
My take on this is that there are two options
Option-1:- Go for an all out war as i specified...however the risk here is that it could go on and on and on...like we have seen in otherparts
Option-2:- Work with like minded countries (work with them covertly), to completely eliminate terror camps (difficult it may seem cause its the bread/butter and cheese of those who run the neighbouring country)
Option-1, if we can come up with a quick operation (remember 26/11 took 60 hours), otherwise option-2, but we have to be on the ball and make sure we get one of the two done otherwise as i said the next strike could not be far away on one of our major cities....
Also Option-1 should be directed at the Terror infrastructure (by infrastructure i mean man power included cause otherwise they will disperse and regroup like they do in the western border in the war that the superpower is waging)
girlfriend Related Free Resume Examples
Macaca
12-27 06:34 PM
Scamsters dictionary (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Scamsters-dictionary/articleshow/7173788.cms) By Dilip Bobb | Times of India
Between Raja and Radia, the tapes and the taps, the Tata and the Chandra-Seeker, it's become terribly confusing trying to figure out who has done what and when and to whom. It's almost like one of those kids' birthday party games where you try and pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded. Competitive politics has made it tougher to figure out head from tail.
The reason everyone is totally confused is because the totals are so mind-boggling: Rs 1.39 trillion is the figure being bandied about and anybody who had that kind of financial spectrum would be giggling hysterically all the way to the nearest bank in Liechtenstein.
It may have been a steep earning curve for someone but it has also been a steep learning curve for the rest of us, trying to figure out all those arcane acronyms being bandied about. Try asking Congress members what the 2G controversy is all about, and they will look quite blank. They have been conditioned to believe that 2G is short for the two Gandhis, Sonia and Rahul, and any other combination is beyond their comprehension. Mention 3G and the plot thickens with Priyanka added to the mix, even though she's now a Vadra. In Congress circles, however, a Gandhi is a Gandhi, and will smell just as sweet (with due apologies to Shakespeare).
Back to the learning curve and the acronyms that everyone's so concerned about. Here's the first lesson in the Scamsters Dictionary. 2G led to CAG which in turn led to CBI which took it to DoT. Then the trail led to TRAI which, in turn, has led to all sorts of connections to the DMK in Chennai and elsewhere, made a sharp U-turn, and moved back to DIAL. And now we have the ED getting involved, trying to ensure that the PMLA has not been violated. Finally, we are still trying to get to the bottom of how VCCPL carried so much clout in such a short time. That, we're told by the opposition, can only happen if there is a JPC.
So far, the investigative bandwidth is spanning the entire spectrum, from NGOs to chartered accountants, priests and editors, friends and family. Everything is relative. It seems to be like the 2G licence which has something called UAS or Unlimited Access Services. Now we all know who had unlimited access to whom, and the raids on Radia have even given us a new phrase to include in the Scamsters Dictionary, "Economic Terrorist", as contributed by Praful Patel who has been stung by his name popping up in the tapes. It's become a mad race to clear your name ASAP.
For the uninitiated, the Scamsters Dictionary starts with DoT, or the Department of Telecommunications, which deals with anything to do with communications, from phones to faxes and everything in between. Then, we have TRAI, or Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, a supposedly independent body. Next is VCCPL, the company owned by Radia, which a very independent entity, aka TRAI's former boss, joined after leaving TRAI, raising eyebrows but also VCCPL's bottom line.
We have another employee who had connections to DIAL, or Delhi International Airport Ltd, but so far he is not named in CAG which, by the way, is yet another independent body, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the one that originally set the feline among the pigeons. We now come to GAG, which is the type of order issued by the CHC, or Congress High Command, to its spokesmen and women. Meanwhile, the CWC, or Congress Working Committee, is working overtime to ensure its ties with the DMK don't go AWOL.
Finally, between the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) we hope to untangle some very tangled wires and cross connections. In fact, in all the confusion, the Scamsters Dictionary will be incomplete without one more acronym: QED.
What we need is really techno technology (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/jugglebandhi/entry/what-we-need-is-really-techno-technology) By Jug Suraiya | Times of India
Between Raja and Radia, the tapes and the taps, the Tata and the Chandra-Seeker, it's become terribly confusing trying to figure out who has done what and when and to whom. It's almost like one of those kids' birthday party games where you try and pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded. Competitive politics has made it tougher to figure out head from tail.
The reason everyone is totally confused is because the totals are so mind-boggling: Rs 1.39 trillion is the figure being bandied about and anybody who had that kind of financial spectrum would be giggling hysterically all the way to the nearest bank in Liechtenstein.
It may have been a steep earning curve for someone but it has also been a steep learning curve for the rest of us, trying to figure out all those arcane acronyms being bandied about. Try asking Congress members what the 2G controversy is all about, and they will look quite blank. They have been conditioned to believe that 2G is short for the two Gandhis, Sonia and Rahul, and any other combination is beyond their comprehension. Mention 3G and the plot thickens with Priyanka added to the mix, even though she's now a Vadra. In Congress circles, however, a Gandhi is a Gandhi, and will smell just as sweet (with due apologies to Shakespeare).
Back to the learning curve and the acronyms that everyone's so concerned about. Here's the first lesson in the Scamsters Dictionary. 2G led to CAG which in turn led to CBI which took it to DoT. Then the trail led to TRAI which, in turn, has led to all sorts of connections to the DMK in Chennai and elsewhere, made a sharp U-turn, and moved back to DIAL. And now we have the ED getting involved, trying to ensure that the PMLA has not been violated. Finally, we are still trying to get to the bottom of how VCCPL carried so much clout in such a short time. That, we're told by the opposition, can only happen if there is a JPC.
So far, the investigative bandwidth is spanning the entire spectrum, from NGOs to chartered accountants, priests and editors, friends and family. Everything is relative. It seems to be like the 2G licence which has something called UAS or Unlimited Access Services. Now we all know who had unlimited access to whom, and the raids on Radia have even given us a new phrase to include in the Scamsters Dictionary, "Economic Terrorist", as contributed by Praful Patel who has been stung by his name popping up in the tapes. It's become a mad race to clear your name ASAP.
For the uninitiated, the Scamsters Dictionary starts with DoT, or the Department of Telecommunications, which deals with anything to do with communications, from phones to faxes and everything in between. Then, we have TRAI, or Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, a supposedly independent body. Next is VCCPL, the company owned by Radia, which a very independent entity, aka TRAI's former boss, joined after leaving TRAI, raising eyebrows but also VCCPL's bottom line.
We have another employee who had connections to DIAL, or Delhi International Airport Ltd, but so far he is not named in CAG which, by the way, is yet another independent body, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the one that originally set the feline among the pigeons. We now come to GAG, which is the type of order issued by the CHC, or Congress High Command, to its spokesmen and women. Meanwhile, the CWC, or Congress Working Committee, is working overtime to ensure its ties with the DMK don't go AWOL.
Finally, between the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) we hope to untangle some very tangled wires and cross connections. In fact, in all the confusion, the Scamsters Dictionary will be incomplete without one more acronym: QED.
What we need is really techno technology (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/jugglebandhi/entry/what-we-need-is-really-techno-technology) By Jug Suraiya | Times of India
hairstyles .samples-resume.com/2010/08/
mariner5555
04-14 03:09 PM
You will never learn. Anyways, if you read my earlier posts you would know that I have said that people who most people who live in apartments would be having valid reasons. I have also said that if I were in CA. I would be living in an apartment too. I am never against renting or living in an apartment, but I am against renting when it makes perfect sense to buy and when the time is right (which of course is NOT NOW).
My counter arguments are for people who were scaring people into not buying a house when things are conducive for them. Note, when I say conducive it means all things considered as in the time is right, they have a good job, have found a very good deal in a location having a very good school and they have found something which has an extra room when their elderly parents visit them.
I can say the same about you. let me clarify too ..and let me stop this since I (and I guess you) have better things to do
my arguments were for people who are being pressurised to buy as if in 3 months prices will go sky high. or for those who are saying that owning a (big)house = better life ..(both are incorrect from a different angle ..so look for your own angle ..for eg you need space ..(u get space but maintenance is more).
if you have atleast a GC, good savings / or super pay, find a good deal (good location with less commute time) and you need the space ..then buy a house.
there is an excess of supply and v.low demand (compared to past) ..so if you can wait for some time to get a correct place then wait (and maybe keep looking / doing research etc) ..the worst thing you can do on a EAD (and in uncertain times) is rush and buy just because somebody told you to do that. the bottom line is ..this was a massive massive bubble ..something that has never occured on this scale ..and housing will be down for a long long time ..so it makes sense to wait for a GC atleast.
My counter arguments are for people who were scaring people into not buying a house when things are conducive for them. Note, when I say conducive it means all things considered as in the time is right, they have a good job, have found a very good deal in a location having a very good school and they have found something which has an extra room when their elderly parents visit them.
I can say the same about you. let me clarify too ..and let me stop this since I (and I guess you) have better things to do
my arguments were for people who are being pressurised to buy as if in 3 months prices will go sky high. or for those who are saying that owning a (big)house = better life ..(both are incorrect from a different angle ..so look for your own angle ..for eg you need space ..(u get space but maintenance is more).
if you have atleast a GC, good savings / or super pay, find a good deal (good location with less commute time) and you need the space ..then buy a house.
there is an excess of supply and v.low demand (compared to past) ..so if you can wait for some time to get a correct place then wait (and maybe keep looking / doing research etc) ..the worst thing you can do on a EAD (and in uncertain times) is rush and buy just because somebody told you to do that. the bottom line is ..this was a massive massive bubble ..something that has never occured on this scale ..and housing will be down for a long long time ..so it makes sense to wait for a GC atleast.
sledge_hammer
03-24 11:51 AM
Can you please elaborate?
I may be understanding this incorrectly, but are they denying our right to be represented by a lawyer?
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
I may be understanding this incorrectly, but are they denying our right to be represented by a lawyer?
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
engineer
01-03 12:31 AM
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//)
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//)
