Macaca
12-23 10:55 AM
Pelosi's first year
San Francisco Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi made history as the nation's first female House speaker in January, but she's had a bumpy first year marked by successes and failures.
Biggest successes
Passed an energy bill raising fuel economy standards for the first time in 30 years, the equivalent today of taking 28 million cars off the road by 2020.
Approved a major cut in interest rates on student loans to make college more affordable.
Passed the strongest ethics reforms since Watergate, banning gifts from lobbyists and making earmarks more transparent.
Secured the largest increase in veterans' benefits in history.
Increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 over three years.
Biggest failures
Despite repeated votes, failed to enact any major changes in Iraq war policy.
Tried to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children, but was blocked by President Bush and House Republicans.
Sparked a diplomatic fight with Turkey by pushing a resolution condemning the country's mass killing of Armenians during World War I.
Abandoned the party's "pay-as-you-go" budget rules to avoid letting the alternative minimum tax hit 20 million Americans.
Accepted Bush's spending limits in the end-of-the-year budget fight to avoid shutting down the federal government.
San Francisco Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi made history as the nation's first female House speaker in January, but she's had a bumpy first year marked by successes and failures.
Biggest successes
Passed an energy bill raising fuel economy standards for the first time in 30 years, the equivalent today of taking 28 million cars off the road by 2020.
Approved a major cut in interest rates on student loans to make college more affordable.
Passed the strongest ethics reforms since Watergate, banning gifts from lobbyists and making earmarks more transparent.
Secured the largest increase in veterans' benefits in history.
Increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 over three years.
Biggest failures
Despite repeated votes, failed to enact any major changes in Iraq war policy.
Tried to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children, but was blocked by President Bush and House Republicans.
Sparked a diplomatic fight with Turkey by pushing a resolution condemning the country's mass killing of Armenians during World War I.
Abandoned the party's "pay-as-you-go" budget rules to avoid letting the alternative minimum tax hit 20 million Americans.
Accepted Bush's spending limits in the end-of-the-year budget fight to avoid shutting down the federal government.
wallpaper Map of Ground War in Iraq
hopefulgc
08-11 04:35 PM
what a loser a person has to be to give out red dots for jokes.
i am here to counter the trends of red dots :)
I also got a red dot for my joke:confused:. Never used any foul language. Comment left was "This type of "blonde jokes" or "sardar jokes" etc are not really suited for a skilled immigrant community forum." I don't understand why do people give Red dots even for jokes. The title of the theread is Ligthen Up.
i am here to counter the trends of red dots :)
I also got a red dot for my joke:confused:. Never used any foul language. Comment left was "This type of "blonde jokes" or "sardar jokes" etc are not really suited for a skilled immigrant community forum." I don't understand why do people give Red dots even for jokes. The title of the theread is Ligthen Up.
GCKaMaara
12-17 04:24 PM
LOL!
Nice to see some light moments here :)
Nice to see some light moments here :)
2011 Iraq-CLC-Map-thumb-large.jpg
ssa
06-23 04:53 PM
Besides other errors in calculation which have been already discussed above, the numbers assumed here are unrealistic.
First and foremost you can't get townhome in Cupertino for 500K. Even in this market 2br/2bth dingy condos in good school district in Cupertino (remember, even within cupertino there are different levels of school district, especially when it comes to high school) are going for 550K at least.
Second for those condos HOA is on an average 400/mo so that's minimum 4800 per year not 3000.
Also the biggest problem with this calculation is it is valid for the very first year ONLY. The 15K you get back from tax credit and 50% from the broker (IF you can get it in the first place) is only for the very first year. What are you going to do for the next 29 years? Unless you think you will own for just one year and then flip it (which is a suicidal plan in this housing economy) it does not make sense.
Here is one calculation that might give you one more reason to buy...
This is taking into consideration bay area good school district ....
say you are currently in a 2 bedroom paying around $1900 rent (say cupertino school district)
you buy a townhome for around $500k putting down 20%
so loan amount is 400k
@ 5% instrest your annual intrest is $ 20k.
Say 3k HOA anually...
Property tax....as a rule of thumb, I believe (and have heard from others) whatever poperty tax you pay comes back as your mortgage intrest and property tax is deductable.
So not taking property tax into account....your annual expense is 23k.
now here is the nice part....
you get 8k (or is it 7.5k ?) from FED for buying a house (first time buyer)
If you get a real estate agent who is ready to give you 50% back on the comission you can get back around 7.5k (assuming the agent gets 3% comission)...I know those kind of agent exist for sure !!
There is something I have heard about CA also giving you 10k for buying new homes...but I am not sure of this so will leave it out of the calculations...
so total amount u get back....8k+ 7.5k = 15k approx..
1st year expense = 23k
1st year actual expense = 23-15 = 8 k
which mean monthly rent = 8k/12 = $666 per month (it is like paying $666 rent for a 2 bedroom in cupertino school district)
Will the property value go up ? I do not know (I wish I knew)...
Is there a risk ? I would think yes....
Percentage of risk ? I would think keeping in mind current prices the risk is low...
I am not telling that you should buy or not buy....just provided one piece of the calculation....-;)
All the best !
First and foremost you can't get townhome in Cupertino for 500K. Even in this market 2br/2bth dingy condos in good school district in Cupertino (remember, even within cupertino there are different levels of school district, especially when it comes to high school) are going for 550K at least.
Second for those condos HOA is on an average 400/mo so that's minimum 4800 per year not 3000.
Also the biggest problem with this calculation is it is valid for the very first year ONLY. The 15K you get back from tax credit and 50% from the broker (IF you can get it in the first place) is only for the very first year. What are you going to do for the next 29 years? Unless you think you will own for just one year and then flip it (which is a suicidal plan in this housing economy) it does not make sense.
Here is one calculation that might give you one more reason to buy...
This is taking into consideration bay area good school district ....
say you are currently in a 2 bedroom paying around $1900 rent (say cupertino school district)
you buy a townhome for around $500k putting down 20%
so loan amount is 400k
@ 5% instrest your annual intrest is $ 20k.
Say 3k HOA anually...
Property tax....as a rule of thumb, I believe (and have heard from others) whatever poperty tax you pay comes back as your mortgage intrest and property tax is deductable.
So not taking property tax into account....your annual expense is 23k.
now here is the nice part....
you get 8k (or is it 7.5k ?) from FED for buying a house (first time buyer)
If you get a real estate agent who is ready to give you 50% back on the comission you can get back around 7.5k (assuming the agent gets 3% comission)...I know those kind of agent exist for sure !!
There is something I have heard about CA also giving you 10k for buying new homes...but I am not sure of this so will leave it out of the calculations...
so total amount u get back....8k+ 7.5k = 15k approx..
1st year expense = 23k
1st year actual expense = 23-15 = 8 k
which mean monthly rent = 8k/12 = $666 per month (it is like paying $666 rent for a 2 bedroom in cupertino school district)
Will the property value go up ? I do not know (I wish I knew)...
Is there a risk ? I would think yes....
Percentage of risk ? I would think keeping in mind current prices the risk is low...
I am not telling that you should buy or not buy....just provided one piece of the calculation....-;)
All the best !
more...
Keeme
12-18 05:02 PM
be it Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia,Darfur,Chechnya, Kashmir, Gujarat... everywhere muslims are killed for being muslims...noone goes to cuba,srilanka,north korea,zimbawe or whereever for watever reason...just imagine God forbid someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.
Palestine -
Iraq - Aren't you glad to see people are free from dictatorship of Saddam ?
Afghanistan - Can you name a place on earth which is worst than this country ?Have you seen video how they treat woman ? Have you seen how school girls were thrown acid for attending a school ? Help Nato/ US/ other country to help those poor souls.
Somalia
Darfur - Do you really know what is going there ? I wonder why not Middle-east country has come forward to stop that killing so far.
Chechnya
Kashmir - More, (may be 1000:1 ratio) pundits/Hindus have been killed there. As I have heard, they had cut 100s Hindu women's **** and hanged in line in main street ! Can you imagine being refugees in your home country !
Gujarat... - Get your facts clear.Muslims are much safer/prosperous in this state. Riots were normal for all of you till the killed Hindus numbers were higher than killed Muslims. some 1000 local were killed in 2002 including 400 + Hindus. People do not mention what happened before in that burning train and 100 + pilgrims were burnt alive.
Accept that there is a problem and fight how you can change it. Today some one is become victim, tomorrow it will be your turn. Doesn't matter where you are from/which religion follow.
Palestine -
Iraq - Aren't you glad to see people are free from dictatorship of Saddam ?
Afghanistan - Can you name a place on earth which is worst than this country ?Have you seen video how they treat woman ? Have you seen how school girls were thrown acid for attending a school ? Help Nato/ US/ other country to help those poor souls.
Somalia
Darfur - Do you really know what is going there ? I wonder why not Middle-east country has come forward to stop that killing so far.
Chechnya
Kashmir - More, (may be 1000:1 ratio) pundits/Hindus have been killed there. As I have heard, they had cut 100s Hindu women's **** and hanged in line in main street ! Can you imagine being refugees in your home country !
Gujarat... - Get your facts clear.Muslims are much safer/prosperous in this state. Riots were normal for all of you till the killed Hindus numbers were higher than killed Muslims. some 1000 local were killed in 2002 including 400 + Hindus. People do not mention what happened before in that burning train and 100 + pilgrims were burnt alive.
Accept that there is a problem and fight how you can change it. Today some one is become victim, tomorrow it will be your turn. Doesn't matter where you are from/which religion follow.
satishku_2000
05-16 05:39 PM
Infact pro immigrants and Corporations are arguing that shortage of skills and they are not displacing US workers. If that is true why cannot they accept the conditions that they will not displace US workers. If you accept that you do not mind replacing some american workers also then all of your points are valid. Then you can lobby for unlimited H1b and Unlimited greencards. You will never get American people support for that. But we all are lobbying based on the shortage of skills. So we should be ready to reduce H1b when demand goes down or accept the conditions for non displacement of US workers. Right now demand is more so US will absorb even 200K H1bs. But you need to look what happened between 2000 to 2003. So many layoffs. Part of reason was economy but other part was due to H1b and outsourcing
I will accept that 25 year old H1b from India can work 15 to 18 hours a day but same kind of productivity cannot get with 40 year old person with family of 2 kids whether Indian or american. Is it right to replace those person with 25 year old person. If that is the case then you will be replaced by youger H1b person in future.
My view is clear. There should be H1b numbers based on demand and supply. If they cannot come with correct numbers then restriction of non displacement of US workers should be there.
Why someone whose permanent labor certificate is approved should have to go thru the process of adertising when his or her H1 is up for renewal? Can you please explain me what is the intent of permanent labor certificate as opposed to LCA in H1?
I will accept that 25 year old H1b from India can work 15 to 18 hours a day but same kind of productivity cannot get with 40 year old person with family of 2 kids whether Indian or american. Is it right to replace those person with 25 year old person. If that is the case then you will be replaced by youger H1b person in future.
My view is clear. There should be H1b numbers based on demand and supply. If they cannot come with correct numbers then restriction of non displacement of US workers should be there.
Why someone whose permanent labor certificate is approved should have to go thru the process of adertising when his or her H1 is up for renewal? Can you please explain me what is the intent of permanent labor certificate as opposed to LCA in H1?
more...
unitednations
08-02 11:54 PM
AC21 tells that one can leave the job after 6 months of filing I485. But the green card is for future job and if anyone is not working for a company after receiving permanent job then green card can be considered as fraud.
These 2 rules are contraditory in nature.
Some of my friends quit the job after 6 months of I485 but after receiving GC they went back and worked for a few months.
Generally USCIS does not have time and resource to track this. But I think they do randomly. One of my other friend resigned the job and he was doing business. He got interview and he postponed the interview to get a job and letter from his previous Company.
If anyone is happy in their job can stay there till receiving gc. In case of layoffs there is no choice one need to invoke. Even if need to resign the Company it is better try to maintain good relationship. After 8 years GC is denied that will place in tough situation though it will happen for a few cases
I refer back to my earlier posting where I said I just read the memos and the law and thought this stuff was pretty simple. USCIS quite often goes above and beyond (tax returns rfe's, pictures of company inside/outside).
I'll give you some examples of what they have done of which I have intimate knowledge of:
1) Questioned company on I-140 why they had more 140's pending/approved then the number of people on payroll. Asked for all 140 info., h1, L1 and even the people who got employment base greencard and asked company to justify where they are
2) Department of state for visa stamping; if they don't trust client letter; they refer the case to department of state fraud unit in Kentucky. They will then contact signer of letter and HR of company to verify that person signed the letter
3) Department of labor is on a real war path of checking companies compliance with h-1b based on referrals made by department of state. I can tell you that there is no way any company who is h-1b dependent can be 100% compliant with h-1b. Patni got fined $3.5 million for violations.
4) Department of labor made a home visit to an HR person who was no longer working with the company to ask and verify her signatue on labor applications in a fast processing state when they weren't registered to do business there
5) Department of labor verifying that people were paid the greencard wage upon greencard approval (this was in conjunction with h-1b investigation). I can tell you that some states have very high eb2 wages and people aren't even close to the labor number; companies do it anyways to keep you happy but do they run that number once you do get the greencard?
6) h-1b rfe's from california service center. when quota finished in one day; there was some rumors from california service center that they would be treating h-1b transfers/quota cases very harshly in that companies were engaging in speculative employment. These days if you are involved in software and you file an h-1b transfer or even extension with california service center; you have a very good chance of getting a four page rfe. One of the things they have started to ask for is a table of people whom h-1b's have been filed for. Table has to list name, social security number, receipt number, date of birth, joining date, termination date, no show, future joining date. California service center then intertwines this information with company unemployment compensation reports. I have actually seen 3 recent denials where USCIS examined the unemployment compensation reports and looked at people who may have been paid a lower wage and pulled those people's h-1b files and denied the present case saying they can't trust the company to comply with the h-1b, lca.
----------------------------------------------------------
These days; uscis/dol/dos really means business. I refer you to earlier posting of how evertime a company files a case; it gives uscis a chance to go through entire immigration history of a company. They have the resources and tools.
These 2 rules are contraditory in nature.
Some of my friends quit the job after 6 months of I485 but after receiving GC they went back and worked for a few months.
Generally USCIS does not have time and resource to track this. But I think they do randomly. One of my other friend resigned the job and he was doing business. He got interview and he postponed the interview to get a job and letter from his previous Company.
If anyone is happy in their job can stay there till receiving gc. In case of layoffs there is no choice one need to invoke. Even if need to resign the Company it is better try to maintain good relationship. After 8 years GC is denied that will place in tough situation though it will happen for a few cases
I refer back to my earlier posting where I said I just read the memos and the law and thought this stuff was pretty simple. USCIS quite often goes above and beyond (tax returns rfe's, pictures of company inside/outside).
I'll give you some examples of what they have done of which I have intimate knowledge of:
1) Questioned company on I-140 why they had more 140's pending/approved then the number of people on payroll. Asked for all 140 info., h1, L1 and even the people who got employment base greencard and asked company to justify where they are
2) Department of state for visa stamping; if they don't trust client letter; they refer the case to department of state fraud unit in Kentucky. They will then contact signer of letter and HR of company to verify that person signed the letter
3) Department of labor is on a real war path of checking companies compliance with h-1b based on referrals made by department of state. I can tell you that there is no way any company who is h-1b dependent can be 100% compliant with h-1b. Patni got fined $3.5 million for violations.
4) Department of labor made a home visit to an HR person who was no longer working with the company to ask and verify her signatue on labor applications in a fast processing state when they weren't registered to do business there
5) Department of labor verifying that people were paid the greencard wage upon greencard approval (this was in conjunction with h-1b investigation). I can tell you that some states have very high eb2 wages and people aren't even close to the labor number; companies do it anyways to keep you happy but do they run that number once you do get the greencard?
6) h-1b rfe's from california service center. when quota finished in one day; there was some rumors from california service center that they would be treating h-1b transfers/quota cases very harshly in that companies were engaging in speculative employment. These days if you are involved in software and you file an h-1b transfer or even extension with california service center; you have a very good chance of getting a four page rfe. One of the things they have started to ask for is a table of people whom h-1b's have been filed for. Table has to list name, social security number, receipt number, date of birth, joining date, termination date, no show, future joining date. California service center then intertwines this information with company unemployment compensation reports. I have actually seen 3 recent denials where USCIS examined the unemployment compensation reports and looked at people who may have been paid a lower wage and pulled those people's h-1b files and denied the present case saying they can't trust the company to comply with the h-1b, lca.
----------------------------------------------------------
These days; uscis/dol/dos really means business. I refer you to earlier posting of how evertime a company files a case; it gives uscis a chance to go through entire immigration history of a company. They have the resources and tools.
2010 Map Iraq
msp1976
04-07 08:31 AM
Members working for consulting companies can talk to their employers about this. Let us know their response.
The employers are not gonna be worried about it..
Many of these restrictions were passed for the L1 program some 1 year back.
I know many people on L1 still working at client sites and no one even saying peep about it...
This is what I heard from a friend who is a employee of a NYSE listed firm with 100+ million turnover...He and a few more on L1 raised this question to their company lawyer.. The company lawyer had many arguments to defend their position. For example 'If DOL raises a question, the company would say we have offices at multiple locations one at each client site..'There is a small army of lawyers on the company's retainer and they are not afraid at all...They told the L1 employees to calm down and leave it to them....There are many creative ways in which to structure the consulting deals and the law is worth the paper it is printed on.....
DOL is gonna have 200 more employees for the enforcement...200 is nothing frankly...Then they have to funded every year...May be congress would not fund the additional 200. Governments never have the will to go after the businesses....So the law would look very restrictive on paper and no real impact.....I know as a fact that the L1 restriction law had absolutely no impact...
The net scenario would really depend on what happens during the first year or so...Suppose USCIS starts denying applications and they deny 10K applications...Then 5K and more of these appeal the denial and in the end sue the USCIS ..Do not forget to remember that CIR is passed and the USCIS is loaded with the legalization workload...The appeals system and the immigration courts would get swamped with these cases...As long as the case is in the appeal or the court, they employee continues to work.....The employees would have problems with the Drivers license and like but some would stick it out...Once USCIS appeals system and courts system gets overloaded with the case load...USCIS and the US attorneys would lose their will power to try to enforce the law......
I do not know the details of judicial review for H1 denials and I did not see anything in this law curtailing the judicial review of H1B petitions...So a lot is subjective about the law.....Many laws never have their intended impact it just goes sits in some corner...
The employers are not gonna be worried about it..
Many of these restrictions were passed for the L1 program some 1 year back.
I know many people on L1 still working at client sites and no one even saying peep about it...
This is what I heard from a friend who is a employee of a NYSE listed firm with 100+ million turnover...He and a few more on L1 raised this question to their company lawyer.. The company lawyer had many arguments to defend their position. For example 'If DOL raises a question, the company would say we have offices at multiple locations one at each client site..'There is a small army of lawyers on the company's retainer and they are not afraid at all...They told the L1 employees to calm down and leave it to them....There are many creative ways in which to structure the consulting deals and the law is worth the paper it is printed on.....
DOL is gonna have 200 more employees for the enforcement...200 is nothing frankly...Then they have to funded every year...May be congress would not fund the additional 200. Governments never have the will to go after the businesses....So the law would look very restrictive on paper and no real impact.....I know as a fact that the L1 restriction law had absolutely no impact...
The net scenario would really depend on what happens during the first year or so...Suppose USCIS starts denying applications and they deny 10K applications...Then 5K and more of these appeal the denial and in the end sue the USCIS ..Do not forget to remember that CIR is passed and the USCIS is loaded with the legalization workload...The appeals system and the immigration courts would get swamped with these cases...As long as the case is in the appeal or the court, they employee continues to work.....The employees would have problems with the Drivers license and like but some would stick it out...Once USCIS appeals system and courts system gets overloaded with the case load...USCIS and the US attorneys would lose their will power to try to enforce the law......
I do not know the details of judicial review for H1 denials and I did not see anything in this law curtailing the judicial review of H1B petitions...So a lot is subjective about the law.....Many laws never have their intended impact it just goes sits in some corner...
more...
Macaca
12-27 06:50 PM
A crucial connection (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/A-crucial-connection/articleshow/7173785.cms) By Michael Kugelman | Times of India
With India's soaring growth and rising global clout hogging media headlines, it is easy to forget the nation is beset by security challenges. Naxalite insurgency rages across more than two-thirds of India's states, while long-simmering tensions in J&K exploded once again this summer. Meanwhile, two years post-Mumbai, Pakistan remains unwilling or unable to dismantle the anti-India militant groups on its soil. Finally, China's military rise continues unabated. As Beijing increases its activities across the Himalayan and Indian Ocean regions, fears about Chinese encirclement are rife.
It is even easier to forget that these challenges are intertwined with natural resource issues. Policy makers in New Delhi often fail to make this connection, at their own peril. Twenty-five per cent of Indians lack access to clean drinking water; about 40 per cent have no electricity. These constraints intensify security problems.
India's immense energy needs - household and commercial - have deepened its dependence on coal, its most heavily consumed energy source. But India's main coal reserves are located in Naxalite bastions. With energy security at stake, New Delhi has a powerful incentive to flush out insurgents. It has done so with heavy-handed shows of force that often trigger civilian casualties. Additionally, intensive coal mining has displaced locals and created toxic living conditions for those who remain. All these outcomes boost support for the insurgency.
Meanwhile, the fruits of this heavy resource extraction elude local communities, fuelling grievances that Naxalites exploit. A similar dynamic plays out in J&K, where electricity-deficient residents decry the paltry proportion of power they receive from central government-owned hydroelectric companies. In both cases, resource inequities are a spark for violent anti-government fervour.
Resource constraints also inflame India's tensions with Pakistan and China. As economic growth and energy demand have accelerated, India has increased its construction of hydropower projects on the western rivers of the Indus Basin - waters that, while allocated to Pakistan by the Indus Waters Treaty, may be harnessed by India for run-of-the-river hydro facilities. Pakistani militants, however, do not make such distinctions. Lashkar-e-Taiba repeatedly lashes out at India's alleged "water theft". Lashkar, capitalising on Pakistan's acute water crisis (it has Asia's lowest per capita water availability), may well use water as a pretext for future attacks on India.
Oil and natural gas are resource catalysts for conflict with China. Due to insufficient energy supplies at home, India is launching aggressive efforts to secure hydrocarbons abroad. This race brings New Delhi into fierce competition with Beijing, whose growing presence in the Indian Ocean region is driven in large part by its own search for natural resources.
India's inability to prevent Chinese energy deals with Myanmar (and its worries about similar future arrangements in Sri Lanka) feeds fears about Chinese encirclement, but also emboldens India to take its energy hunt further afield. Strategists now cite the protection of faraway future energy holdings as a core motivation for naval modernisation plans; India's energy investments already extend from the Middle East and Africa to Latin America. Such reach exposes India to new vulnerabilities, underscoring the imperative of enhanced sea-based energy transit protection capabilities.
While sea-related China-India tensions revolve around energy, land-based discord is tied to water. South Asia holds less than 5 per cent of annual global renewable water resources, but China-India border tensions centre around the region's rare water-rich areas, particularly Arunachal Pradesh. Additionally, Chinese dam-building on Tibetan Plateau rivers - including the mighty Brahmaputra - alarms lower-riparian India. With many Chinese agricultural areas water-scarce, and India supporting nearly 20 per cent of the world's population with only 4 per cent of its water, neither nation takes such disputes lightly.
India's resource constraints, impelled by population growth and climate change, will likely worsen in the years ahead. Recent estimates envision water deficits of 50 per cent by 2030 and outright scarcity by 2050, if not earlier. Meanwhile, India is expected to become the world's third-largest energy consumer by 2030, when the country could import 50 per cent of its natural gas and a staggering 90 per cent of its oil. If such projections prove accurate, the impact on national security could be devastating.
So what can be done? First, New Delhi must integrate natural resource considerations into security policy and planning. India's navy, with its goal of developing a blue-water force to safeguard energy resources overseas, has planted an initial seed. Yet much more must be done, and progress can be made only when policy makers better understand the destabilising effects of resource constraints. Second, India should acknowledge its poor resource governance, and craft demand-side, conservation-based policies that better manage precious - but not scarce - resources. This means improved maintenance of water infrastructure (40 per cent of water in most Indian cities is lost to pipeline leaks), more equitable resource allocations, and stronger incentives for implementing water- and energy-efficient technologies (like drip irrigation) and policies (like rainwater harvesting).
Such steps will not make India's security challenges disappear, but they will make the security situation less perilous. And they will move the country closer to the day when resource efficiency and equity join military modernisation and counterinsurgency as India's security watchwords.
The writer is programme asso-ciate for South Asia at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, DC
What They Said: Rooting for Binayak Sen (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/12/27/what-they-said-press-activists-root-for-binayak-sen/) By Krishna Pokharel | IndiaRealTime
Indian government criticised for human rights activist's life sentence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/26/amnesty-criticises-sen-life-sentence) By Jason Burke | The Guardian
With India's soaring growth and rising global clout hogging media headlines, it is easy to forget the nation is beset by security challenges. Naxalite insurgency rages across more than two-thirds of India's states, while long-simmering tensions in J&K exploded once again this summer. Meanwhile, two years post-Mumbai, Pakistan remains unwilling or unable to dismantle the anti-India militant groups on its soil. Finally, China's military rise continues unabated. As Beijing increases its activities across the Himalayan and Indian Ocean regions, fears about Chinese encirclement are rife.
It is even easier to forget that these challenges are intertwined with natural resource issues. Policy makers in New Delhi often fail to make this connection, at their own peril. Twenty-five per cent of Indians lack access to clean drinking water; about 40 per cent have no electricity. These constraints intensify security problems.
India's immense energy needs - household and commercial - have deepened its dependence on coal, its most heavily consumed energy source. But India's main coal reserves are located in Naxalite bastions. With energy security at stake, New Delhi has a powerful incentive to flush out insurgents. It has done so with heavy-handed shows of force that often trigger civilian casualties. Additionally, intensive coal mining has displaced locals and created toxic living conditions for those who remain. All these outcomes boost support for the insurgency.
Meanwhile, the fruits of this heavy resource extraction elude local communities, fuelling grievances that Naxalites exploit. A similar dynamic plays out in J&K, where electricity-deficient residents decry the paltry proportion of power they receive from central government-owned hydroelectric companies. In both cases, resource inequities are a spark for violent anti-government fervour.
Resource constraints also inflame India's tensions with Pakistan and China. As economic growth and energy demand have accelerated, India has increased its construction of hydropower projects on the western rivers of the Indus Basin - waters that, while allocated to Pakistan by the Indus Waters Treaty, may be harnessed by India for run-of-the-river hydro facilities. Pakistani militants, however, do not make such distinctions. Lashkar-e-Taiba repeatedly lashes out at India's alleged "water theft". Lashkar, capitalising on Pakistan's acute water crisis (it has Asia's lowest per capita water availability), may well use water as a pretext for future attacks on India.
Oil and natural gas are resource catalysts for conflict with China. Due to insufficient energy supplies at home, India is launching aggressive efforts to secure hydrocarbons abroad. This race brings New Delhi into fierce competition with Beijing, whose growing presence in the Indian Ocean region is driven in large part by its own search for natural resources.
India's inability to prevent Chinese energy deals with Myanmar (and its worries about similar future arrangements in Sri Lanka) feeds fears about Chinese encirclement, but also emboldens India to take its energy hunt further afield. Strategists now cite the protection of faraway future energy holdings as a core motivation for naval modernisation plans; India's energy investments already extend from the Middle East and Africa to Latin America. Such reach exposes India to new vulnerabilities, underscoring the imperative of enhanced sea-based energy transit protection capabilities.
While sea-related China-India tensions revolve around energy, land-based discord is tied to water. South Asia holds less than 5 per cent of annual global renewable water resources, but China-India border tensions centre around the region's rare water-rich areas, particularly Arunachal Pradesh. Additionally, Chinese dam-building on Tibetan Plateau rivers - including the mighty Brahmaputra - alarms lower-riparian India. With many Chinese agricultural areas water-scarce, and India supporting nearly 20 per cent of the world's population with only 4 per cent of its water, neither nation takes such disputes lightly.
India's resource constraints, impelled by population growth and climate change, will likely worsen in the years ahead. Recent estimates envision water deficits of 50 per cent by 2030 and outright scarcity by 2050, if not earlier. Meanwhile, India is expected to become the world's third-largest energy consumer by 2030, when the country could import 50 per cent of its natural gas and a staggering 90 per cent of its oil. If such projections prove accurate, the impact on national security could be devastating.
So what can be done? First, New Delhi must integrate natural resource considerations into security policy and planning. India's navy, with its goal of developing a blue-water force to safeguard energy resources overseas, has planted an initial seed. Yet much more must be done, and progress can be made only when policy makers better understand the destabilising effects of resource constraints. Second, India should acknowledge its poor resource governance, and craft demand-side, conservation-based policies that better manage precious - but not scarce - resources. This means improved maintenance of water infrastructure (40 per cent of water in most Indian cities is lost to pipeline leaks), more equitable resource allocations, and stronger incentives for implementing water- and energy-efficient technologies (like drip irrigation) and policies (like rainwater harvesting).
Such steps will not make India's security challenges disappear, but they will make the security situation less perilous. And they will move the country closer to the day when resource efficiency and equity join military modernisation and counterinsurgency as India's security watchwords.
The writer is programme asso-ciate for South Asia at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, DC
What They Said: Rooting for Binayak Sen (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/12/27/what-they-said-press-activists-root-for-binayak-sen/) By Krishna Pokharel | IndiaRealTime
Indian government criticised for human rights activist's life sentence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/26/amnesty-criticises-sen-life-sentence) By Jason Burke | The Guardian
hair Places, map of Iraq
pani_6
07-13 08:52 PM
Dont worry about negative opinions of people..I urge EB3-I to post the letter first and then get into discussions..
Action & Urgency!
Come' on EB3-I
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20147
Action & Urgency!
Come' on EB3-I
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20147
more...
rajuram
07-13 02:20 PM
It is funny how EB2s are crying like little babies. Just a hint of EB3 getting more visas is making you guys sweat. You people have all the luck, nothing is going to happen so RELAX.
Just remember that there are a lot of EB3 out there with Masters degrees, like myself, and waiting since early 2002.
EB3s - mail out the letter PLEASE!!!!!
Just remember that there are a lot of EB3 out there with Masters degrees, like myself, and waiting since early 2002.
EB3s - mail out the letter PLEASE!!!!!
hot Download: Map of Iraq (Map
thakurrajiv
03-26 10:13 AM
These banks, Mortgage companies and realtors - The whole nexus of sharks have made refinance almost impossible since last week.. Any body else noticed that? What happened is as soon as FED cut down the rate this nexus dramatically reduces the price 10 - 15%. If you go to zillow, you would find at least 10% reduction published for almost every home with comparison to 5 days before... Something is cooking up.. I do not know what it may be...At least for VA, MD, DC based homes I see this pattern. It looks like, lenders do not want to invite refinances.. and that is scary. Even most sites shows the list of properties with less value under " property sold last in 6 months" and make the properties disappeared which wer sold with reasonable price. I noticed this pattern for many bank alerts as well. So now the real picture you can get from is the county database only to fight these sharks. Are they trying to divert all to government loans (FHA?)... watch out.
I posted a few messages in another thread on macroeconomic issues. As you found out, a lot of people don't understand the severity of credit crunch. If you have lot of cash, yes you have a big advantage, go and invest. Even if you get it wrong for next 5 years, you will be ok.
But for people who want to do this on borrowed money, credit crunch will hit you. The credit crunch will get worse. Whole mortgage industry will change, things will tighten. This just means something has to give up, which is house price.
If you are already not in a house, wait as you might be able to buy at much lower prices. Jump into RE as investment now only if you have enough cash to sustain upto 30% drop in home prices !!
I posted a few messages in another thread on macroeconomic issues. As you found out, a lot of people don't understand the severity of credit crunch. If you have lot of cash, yes you have a big advantage, go and invest. Even if you get it wrong for next 5 years, you will be ok.
But for people who want to do this on borrowed money, credit crunch will hit you. The credit crunch will get worse. Whole mortgage industry will change, things will tighten. This just means something has to give up, which is house price.
If you are already not in a house, wait as you might be able to buy at much lower prices. Jump into RE as investment now only if you have enough cash to sustain upto 30% drop in home prices !!
more...
house Iraq is located in the Middle
acecupid
08-05 03:15 PM
Seems like a lot of emotions running high on this thread!
Given that the USCIS director doesn't visit IV before writing memos on interfiling and porting PD's it's meaningless getting your blood pressure up.
Rolling flood is definitely free to file his/her lawsuit whether folks here like it or not and SunnySurya has every right to join in.
Wondering why folks from EB-3 want to just move up to EB-2 and port PD. Why not go for EB-1? After all that category is current.
If someone is eligible to port to a higher category they will rightfully do so. Your post seems to imply all PD porting is through shady means. Grow up buddy!
Given that the USCIS director doesn't visit IV before writing memos on interfiling and porting PD's it's meaningless getting your blood pressure up.
Rolling flood is definitely free to file his/her lawsuit whether folks here like it or not and SunnySurya has every right to join in.
Wondering why folks from EB-3 want to just move up to EB-2 and port PD. Why not go for EB-1? After all that category is current.
If someone is eligible to port to a higher category they will rightfully do so. Your post seems to imply all PD porting is through shady means. Grow up buddy!
tattoo Map of downtown Baghdad, Iraq.
mariner5555
04-13 12:17 AM
agree with Jung.lee. if you are in california or florida ..it definitely makes sense to wait. MSN reported that lot of people are just walking away ..
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomeFinancing/HomeownersWhoJustWalkAway.aspx
-------
Ismael, 37, still lives in his four-bedroom house in Menifee, Calif., for now. But he is ready to leave.
"The situation I am in is really ugly," said Ismael, who asked that his last name be omitted. "It's better for me to walk away and leave the stress and everything that is involved in this home. I am about 95% sure I am walking away."
The single parent of a 3-year-old, Ismael bought his $370,000 home in 2005 for no money down, qualifying on his mid-$40,000s salary. (That's about triple what he might have qualified for under more traditional lending guidelines used in MSN Money's Housing Affordability Calculator.) He was paying $2,700 a month for an adjustable 8.25% loan.
Photo by Joseph A. Garcia
Then he and his girlfriend split up, reducing his household income to a single paycheck at the same time the mortgage was adjusting upward. To add to his struggles, the value of his house dropped by $145,000.
Yadira Maga�a, left, with her children Lizeth Torres, 13, and Conrad Torres III, 10, have lived at her mother's Oxnard, Calif., home since walking away from their previous residence in 2007.
Yadira Maga�a, a medical biller in her early 30s in Oxnard, Calif., has a similar story. She walked away from her $585,000 home in June 2007. When she bought it, Maga�a thought she had gotten a great deal. She made a $16,000 down payment on the house. But she lived there only eight months before her marriage collapsed.
She couldn't afford to pay the $4,500 monthly interest-only mortgage, plus taxes and insurance separately, on her own $50,000 income. So she and her two children moved into her mother's house.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomeFinancing/HomeownersWhoJustWalkAway.aspx
-------
Ismael, 37, still lives in his four-bedroom house in Menifee, Calif., for now. But he is ready to leave.
"The situation I am in is really ugly," said Ismael, who asked that his last name be omitted. "It's better for me to walk away and leave the stress and everything that is involved in this home. I am about 95% sure I am walking away."
The single parent of a 3-year-old, Ismael bought his $370,000 home in 2005 for no money down, qualifying on his mid-$40,000s salary. (That's about triple what he might have qualified for under more traditional lending guidelines used in MSN Money's Housing Affordability Calculator.) He was paying $2,700 a month for an adjustable 8.25% loan.
Photo by Joseph A. Garcia
Then he and his girlfriend split up, reducing his household income to a single paycheck at the same time the mortgage was adjusting upward. To add to his struggles, the value of his house dropped by $145,000.
Yadira Maga�a, left, with her children Lizeth Torres, 13, and Conrad Torres III, 10, have lived at her mother's Oxnard, Calif., home since walking away from their previous residence in 2007.
Yadira Maga�a, a medical biller in her early 30s in Oxnard, Calif., has a similar story. She walked away from her $585,000 home in June 2007. When she bought it, Maga�a thought she had gotten a great deal. She made a $16,000 down payment on the house. But she lived there only eight months before her marriage collapsed.
She couldn't afford to pay the $4,500 monthly interest-only mortgage, plus taxes and insurance separately, on her own $50,000 income. So she and her two children moved into her mother's house.
more...
pictures Iraq Topographic Map Royalty
mariner5555
04-06 06:55 AM
Land cannot be manufactured. The population is growing by the day and people need a place to live. So the space is at a premium here. The housing market maybe down because of the sub-prime crisis and the banks going out of business. But eventually it has to come back. Maybe this market is not for people who are looking to invest.
Look at india for instance: whatever state the economy is in, the housing always booms because of the supply/demand factor. Eventually US will reach that stage unless otherwise the population shrinks.
land cannot be manufactured but look around. US has a massive excess of land compared to its population. what you say about India is correct(to some degree but there are local bubbles out there too)..US will never have that ratio of people / land. especially you don't know what the trend is going to be with the baby boomers ..will they sell their houses and live in mexico ..you never know (so cannot predict). price of land will go up over long long term (due to inflation) but in the short term it is DOWN DOWN and DOWN. if one can wait for a year then they should wait ..and if you do a analysis of costs ..renting is not throwing off yr money ..you get a place to stay (a place which has mobility, less maintenance etc). Especially if you are in banking or related sectors ..just wait ..u don't know who will collapse next.
btw for central NJ (not familiar with that area) ..the price projection in next 5 years is still down.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/price_rent_ratios/
here is another point from earlier post
------------
Because the baby-boom generation is so much bigger than succeeding generations, the ratio of people in the retirement years, 65 and older, to those in the working years, 20 to 64, will rise from 20.6% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2030, according to the Census Bureau.
For most people, the house they live in is their biggest retirement asset. In retirement, people cash in on the value of their homes by selling and then buying less expensive houses, renting or moving in with the kids.
-----------
Look at india for instance: whatever state the economy is in, the housing always booms because of the supply/demand factor. Eventually US will reach that stage unless otherwise the population shrinks.
land cannot be manufactured but look around. US has a massive excess of land compared to its population. what you say about India is correct(to some degree but there are local bubbles out there too)..US will never have that ratio of people / land. especially you don't know what the trend is going to be with the baby boomers ..will they sell their houses and live in mexico ..you never know (so cannot predict). price of land will go up over long long term (due to inflation) but in the short term it is DOWN DOWN and DOWN. if one can wait for a year then they should wait ..and if you do a analysis of costs ..renting is not throwing off yr money ..you get a place to stay (a place which has mobility, less maintenance etc). Especially if you are in banking or related sectors ..just wait ..u don't know who will collapse next.
btw for central NJ (not familiar with that area) ..the price projection in next 5 years is still down.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/price_rent_ratios/
here is another point from earlier post
------------
Because the baby-boom generation is so much bigger than succeeding generations, the ratio of people in the retirement years, 65 and older, to those in the working years, 20 to 64, will rise from 20.6% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2030, according to the Census Bureau.
For most people, the house they live in is their biggest retirement asset. In retirement, people cash in on the value of their homes by selling and then buying less expensive houses, renting or moving in with the kids.
-----------
dresses Iraq Outline Map
satishku_2000
05-16 12:09 AM
What do you about how I came to the country!? I came here to take a full-time job with an American employer. I get paid above minimum wage and had a solid offer for the job BEFORE the company submitted the H-1B application.
I do realize a lot of people will be out of a 'job' (or off the bench, depending on how you look at it) with the elimination of body shopping. But guess what -- they shouldn't even be here in the first place if they don't have full-time jobs. As said before, they clog up an otherwise great visa program.
I'll give you the reason they are concerned --- the visas for the coming fiscal year emptied out IN ONE DAY, obviously indicating the H-1B program is infected with abuse beyond anyone's expectations. They are out to put and end to that charade.
I don't know what the deal is with India, but apparently more than 40% of all H-1B applications come from India based companies, for 'employees' from India. For this reason congress recently got in contact with the biggest of these companies for an explanation. Hopefully these actions will pave the way for more legit visas for the rest of us. Now don't get me wrong -- I have absolutely nothing against people from India. In fact I have really good impressions with people from India in general. But I (and congress) expect them to obey the law like everybody else.
mbdriver
The deal with india is its home to billion people on the planet. Most of these companies recruit from India for same reason why Walmart gets most of its products from China. Free markets and Globalization is not a one way street. If american companies are so good and so caring they dont outsource , they outsource to further their bottomlines. If American companies dont want to outsource all these consulting companies will go out of business overnight.
As far as your comments about employees from India .. most of these companies are listed in NASDAQ and NYSE (INFY, SAY, WIT).. At least some americans are share holders/owners of these companies. Dont be surprised to know the fact that some americans are on the boards of these companies .Let me make one thing clear, I am not a big fan of these companies , Infact I used work for of these companies and I have first hand experience how these companies treat their employees.
If any one violates any law he or she should be brought to justice. I am not quite sure what laws these companies have violated. In this country any one is innocent till proven guilty.
I totally understand your frustration with your VISA situation and hope and pray that you win VISA in the "lottery" .
I do realize a lot of people will be out of a 'job' (or off the bench, depending on how you look at it) with the elimination of body shopping. But guess what -- they shouldn't even be here in the first place if they don't have full-time jobs. As said before, they clog up an otherwise great visa program.
I'll give you the reason they are concerned --- the visas for the coming fiscal year emptied out IN ONE DAY, obviously indicating the H-1B program is infected with abuse beyond anyone's expectations. They are out to put and end to that charade.
I don't know what the deal is with India, but apparently more than 40% of all H-1B applications come from India based companies, for 'employees' from India. For this reason congress recently got in contact with the biggest of these companies for an explanation. Hopefully these actions will pave the way for more legit visas for the rest of us. Now don't get me wrong -- I have absolutely nothing against people from India. In fact I have really good impressions with people from India in general. But I (and congress) expect them to obey the law like everybody else.
mbdriver
The deal with india is its home to billion people on the planet. Most of these companies recruit from India for same reason why Walmart gets most of its products from China. Free markets and Globalization is not a one way street. If american companies are so good and so caring they dont outsource , they outsource to further their bottomlines. If American companies dont want to outsource all these consulting companies will go out of business overnight.
As far as your comments about employees from India .. most of these companies are listed in NASDAQ and NYSE (INFY, SAY, WIT).. At least some americans are share holders/owners of these companies. Dont be surprised to know the fact that some americans are on the boards of these companies .Let me make one thing clear, I am not a big fan of these companies , Infact I used work for of these companies and I have first hand experience how these companies treat their employees.
If any one violates any law he or she should be brought to justice. I am not quite sure what laws these companies have violated. In this country any one is innocent till proven guilty.
I totally understand your frustration with your VISA situation and hope and pray that you win VISA in the "lottery" .
more...
makeup Map made by: Tore Kjeilen
abracadabra102
01-03 02:48 PM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
girlfriend Map of Iraq
Macaca
12-21 10:00 AM
Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21cong.html) By CARL HULSE and ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
�What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
�I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
�A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
�Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
�The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
�I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�
WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
�What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
�I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
�A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
�Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
�The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
�I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�
hairstyles of Innocents in Iraq
whattodo
07-11 11:49 AM
My wife (secondary applicant on I-485) started job 1.5 months after her H4 to H1 approval. She needed to wait for SSN and that took 1.5 months. Will that create any issue? I am planning to use AC21 to change job. Will that result in extra scrutiny?
waitnwatch
10-01 05:35 PM
I think retrogression will improve in the future. Here is why I think so.
Durbin is basically interested in changing the rules for H1-B. So one thing is assured, no more increase in the H1-B quota if Obama wins. Even if McCain wins I am doubtful there will be an H1-B quota increase in a Democratic majority house and senate.
On the other hand none of the candidates, senators or congressmen/women care too much to bet their political career on changing legal immigration. So the current EB system is just not going to change that easily. But with fewer people joining the line (the recession will reduce new immigration even further) I would assume that EB-2 will go current at some point in the next year. This will ultimately start reducing the backlogs in EB3.
Now don't start throwing numbers at me. I understand that it may still be some wait. But generally even in the worst case scenario things will not become worse as some folks predict.
Durbin is basically interested in changing the rules for H1-B. So one thing is assured, no more increase in the H1-B quota if Obama wins. Even if McCain wins I am doubtful there will be an H1-B quota increase in a Democratic majority house and senate.
On the other hand none of the candidates, senators or congressmen/women care too much to bet their political career on changing legal immigration. So the current EB system is just not going to change that easily. But with fewer people joining the line (the recession will reduce new immigration even further) I would assume that EB-2 will go current at some point in the next year. This will ultimately start reducing the backlogs in EB3.
Now don't start throwing numbers at me. I understand that it may still be some wait. But generally even in the worst case scenario things will not become worse as some folks predict.
Macaca
12-29 07:52 PM
Foreign dignitaries chafe at TSA policies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122205461.html) By Colum Lynch | Washington Post
Hardeep Singh Puri, India's ambassador to the United Nations, last month ran headfirst into a controversial new Transportation Security Administration inspection policy for many foreign travelers.
At the airport in Austin, TSA agents demanded to inspect his turban. Puri is a Sikh, whose religion requires that the turban, or dastar, be worn in public to cover uncut hair. Puri refused the TSA order, citing an agency exception that allows Sikhs to pat down their own turbans to avoid intrusive searches and then have their hands tested for possible explosives.
The situation escalated when TSA agents initially ignored Puri's protestations and said they would decide what the rules are, according to an official traveling with the ambassador.
Puri told an Indian newspaper that the issue was resolved in about 20 minutes after he asked a supervisor to intervene.
The incident underscores the sometimes bumpy relationship between the TSA and foreign delegations traveling to the United States in an era of heightened security.
Diplomats are required to submit to searches, which intensified for many foreign travelers to the United States in January. The TSA put in place special procedures for greater scrutiny of individuals from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, prompting complaints from Muslim governments. (India was not on the list.)
In April, "enhanced random security measures" for all passengers were put into effect - including pat-downs, sniffing dogs and more rigorous explosives testing. And last month, the TSA approved even more invasive body searches, which posed particularly sensitive issues for passengers with certain religious beliefs and medical issues.
For globe-trotting diplomats, the U.S. government has offered since 2007 a list of "tips" to help them get through "the screening process easily and efficiently." It advises foreign dignitaries to carry two sets of credentials and warns that "screening may include a hand-wanding procedure and pat-down inspection." Searches, the memo says, will be conducted out of public view.
The episode involving Puri has roiled sensibilities in India, where Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna complained this month about the TSA's pat-downs of Meera Shankar, the country's ambassador to the United States. Krishna said Shankar was frisked twice in three months, most recently when she was pulled aside at the Jackson, Miss., airport and subjected to a body search by a female TSA agent.
"Let me be very frank that this is unacceptable," Krishna said.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the State Department would look into the matter and try to take steps to avoid such international incidents.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in a statement: "The threat to aviation is a global challenge and every airport in the world is wrestling with how to best protect the flying public with as little friction as possible. We are all in this together. Our citizens are affected and those of other countries. Our diplomats are impacted, so are the diplomats of other countries. These situations in this country are certainly not unique."
A TSA spokesman defended the treatment of Puri and Shankar. The overwhelming majority of 2 million U.S. air travelers, the official said, have had a positive experience using the nation's airports.
Puri "was not required to remove his turban, and our officers worked with him to complete screening according to established procedures," said spokesman Nicholas Kimball. "We will continue working with our officers to reinforce all established policies, including those pertaining to the respectful screening of religious headwear and clothing."
Kimball also said that a review of Shankar's pat-down in Jackson demonstrated that the TSA agents "followed proper procedure."
"United States airport security policies accommodate those individuals with religious, medical or other reasons for which the passenger cannot or wishes not to remove a certain item of clothing," Kimball added. "For religious headwear, a passenger can pat the item down themselves and then have their hand tested for traces of explosive residue."
In March, a State Department goodwill tour of the United States for a delegation of Pakistani lawmakers backfired after the group was asked to submit to additional screening on a flight from Washington to New Orleans. The lawmakers refused to board. The Pakistani army recalled a military delegation from Washington after the officers were subjected to what it called "unwarranted" searches.
Many of the incidents involve domestic flights at airports where TSA agents may have less exposure to foreign fliers than those at major international airports. One U.N. official, an American citizen of South Asian extraction, traveling with his American wife and children, said he often gets pulled aside for pat-downs and "random searches."
He said his youngest daughter recently recalled her memories of a flight: "I remember, we go on the airplane, and I take my shoes off, and you take your shoes off, and the men take Papa away and touch him everywhere," the girl told her mother.
But other diplomats from South Asia say they have had no trouble with the TSA.
Anwarul Chowdhury, a former Bangladeshi ambassador to the United Nations, said he has traveled without problems for more than a decade as a foreign and U.N. official. He recently returned from a trip to Spain without incident. "We had smooth sailing," he said. "My wife also wears a sari all the time. I don't wear a turban, but I think they were extremely courteous, very nice."
Hardeep Singh Puri, India's ambassador to the United Nations, last month ran headfirst into a controversial new Transportation Security Administration inspection policy for many foreign travelers.
At the airport in Austin, TSA agents demanded to inspect his turban. Puri is a Sikh, whose religion requires that the turban, or dastar, be worn in public to cover uncut hair. Puri refused the TSA order, citing an agency exception that allows Sikhs to pat down their own turbans to avoid intrusive searches and then have their hands tested for possible explosives.
The situation escalated when TSA agents initially ignored Puri's protestations and said they would decide what the rules are, according to an official traveling with the ambassador.
Puri told an Indian newspaper that the issue was resolved in about 20 minutes after he asked a supervisor to intervene.
The incident underscores the sometimes bumpy relationship between the TSA and foreign delegations traveling to the United States in an era of heightened security.
Diplomats are required to submit to searches, which intensified for many foreign travelers to the United States in January. The TSA put in place special procedures for greater scrutiny of individuals from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, prompting complaints from Muslim governments. (India was not on the list.)
In April, "enhanced random security measures" for all passengers were put into effect - including pat-downs, sniffing dogs and more rigorous explosives testing. And last month, the TSA approved even more invasive body searches, which posed particularly sensitive issues for passengers with certain religious beliefs and medical issues.
For globe-trotting diplomats, the U.S. government has offered since 2007 a list of "tips" to help them get through "the screening process easily and efficiently." It advises foreign dignitaries to carry two sets of credentials and warns that "screening may include a hand-wanding procedure and pat-down inspection." Searches, the memo says, will be conducted out of public view.
The episode involving Puri has roiled sensibilities in India, where Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna complained this month about the TSA's pat-downs of Meera Shankar, the country's ambassador to the United States. Krishna said Shankar was frisked twice in three months, most recently when she was pulled aside at the Jackson, Miss., airport and subjected to a body search by a female TSA agent.
"Let me be very frank that this is unacceptable," Krishna said.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the State Department would look into the matter and try to take steps to avoid such international incidents.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in a statement: "The threat to aviation is a global challenge and every airport in the world is wrestling with how to best protect the flying public with as little friction as possible. We are all in this together. Our citizens are affected and those of other countries. Our diplomats are impacted, so are the diplomats of other countries. These situations in this country are certainly not unique."
A TSA spokesman defended the treatment of Puri and Shankar. The overwhelming majority of 2 million U.S. air travelers, the official said, have had a positive experience using the nation's airports.
Puri "was not required to remove his turban, and our officers worked with him to complete screening according to established procedures," said spokesman Nicholas Kimball. "We will continue working with our officers to reinforce all established policies, including those pertaining to the respectful screening of religious headwear and clothing."
Kimball also said that a review of Shankar's pat-down in Jackson demonstrated that the TSA agents "followed proper procedure."
"United States airport security policies accommodate those individuals with religious, medical or other reasons for which the passenger cannot or wishes not to remove a certain item of clothing," Kimball added. "For religious headwear, a passenger can pat the item down themselves and then have their hand tested for traces of explosive residue."
In March, a State Department goodwill tour of the United States for a delegation of Pakistani lawmakers backfired after the group was asked to submit to additional screening on a flight from Washington to New Orleans. The lawmakers refused to board. The Pakistani army recalled a military delegation from Washington after the officers were subjected to what it called "unwarranted" searches.
Many of the incidents involve domestic flights at airports where TSA agents may have less exposure to foreign fliers than those at major international airports. One U.N. official, an American citizen of South Asian extraction, traveling with his American wife and children, said he often gets pulled aside for pat-downs and "random searches."
He said his youngest daughter recently recalled her memories of a flight: "I remember, we go on the airplane, and I take my shoes off, and you take your shoes off, and the men take Papa away and touch him everywhere," the girl told her mother.
But other diplomats from South Asia say they have had no trouble with the TSA.
Anwarul Chowdhury, a former Bangladeshi ambassador to the United Nations, said he has traveled without problems for more than a decade as a foreign and U.N. official. He recently returned from a trip to Spain without incident. "We had smooth sailing," he said. "My wife also wears a sari all the time. I don't wear a turban, but I think they were extremely courteous, very nice."