March 29, 2013
M A Niazi 0



While the caretaker Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers have been appointed, moving the country inexorably to the elections, it must be noted that Pakistan’s elections are by no means the only ones taking place and thus it is hardly a stand-out. So the task of navigating the shoals of government involve a complication; this complication is hardly limited to Pakistan. If we are to look at the difficulty that Pakistan faces, all its interlocutors internationally have either faced an election, or will do so.

The USA has had its third election only last year, since it invaded Afghanistan. It has re-elected its second President. Afghanistan itself will go to the polls next year, in an American presidential-style election, which will not just be the last election under occupation, but will have a new President, since President Hamid Karzai is coming up against the two-term limit.

India, which has grown so close to the USA, is due to have an election not later than next year that might mean a different Prime Minister even if the Congress again manages to form the government, which is by no means a certainty.

Other US allies that experienced changes of government were Japan and South Korea. Japan elected the Liberal Democratic Party back to power, which formed a government headed by Shintaro Abe, a former Foreign Minister. South Korea not only elected a woman President in Park Geun-Hye, but also the daughter of Park Chung Hee, a general who had taken over in 1961, before himself being assassinated in a coup attempt in 1979.
Daughters of dead rulers have been tried elsewhere in Asia, most notably in South Asia, where Indira Gandhi of India, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan and Hasina Wajid of Bangladesh all not just reminded their nations of famous fathers, but preceded Megawati Soekarnoputri of Indonesia, who was the Muslim world’s first female President.

Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi provides another example of the daughter of a national leader achieving political prominence, being the daughter of Aung San, Myanmar’s fist leader after independence in 1948, though she has not been her country’s chief executive, but leader of its opposition.

However, one of the results that the USA was most interested in, was that of the Israeli election, in which Benjamin Netanyahu was re-elected Prime Minister. That he, himself pro-settlement, headed a government which pushed harder for Zionist settlements in the occupied West Bank, was probably something the USA, and certainly its legislators, found helpful, though it would retard the peace process with the Palestinians.

One of the main differences for the USA lies in that between the British parliamentary-style and the American presidential-style elections. While both India and Pakistan are former British colonies, with parliamentary-governments, Afghanistan has a presidential government.

Similarly, Japan has a parliamentary form, whereas South Korea a presidential. However, since prime ministers produced by the parliamentary system have grown into president-style chief executives, rather than the originally conceived cabinet chairmen, whether a prime minister is elected or a president, it does not seem there will be any substantial difference in dealing with a fully empowered chief executive. Any differences will be national, not systemic. The rule of thumb seems to be that if a country has a parliamentary system already, it will be allowed to retain it, but it will have a presidential system if it has been conquered by the USA.

Another US ally with a parliamentary system and a recent election has been Italy, which might have to go to the polls again soon, because the poll has not yet yielded a government that could do what is required of it by the European Central Bank.

This is the dilemma already faced by Greece, another US ally with recent polls after it had threatened to pull down the euro, and with all the economies of the Euro Zone. Mexico has a presidential system, with a president just elected in the middle of a crime wave because of drug smuggling into the USA.
Nevertheless, where leaders have been re-elected, and thus apparently face no further electoral pressure to behave in a certain manner, their parties remain, and need candidates for the next election. This can be observed in Afghanistan, the USA and South Korea (which has a one-term limit).

In Pakistan, the situation is complicated. One of the advantages of a presidential system over a parliamentary is that the chief executive on offer is clear. One of the factors that has made the parliamentary system more presidential is that parties have needed personalities to lead them in campaigns, and thus in government.

Aspirants to the prime ministership have stepped in with natural consequences when any of them actually won office.

In Pakistan, the PPP does not have a candidate for the prime ministership. ‘Nominee of Asif Zardari’ was what the party had to offer last time, but that is hardly a prospect to enthuse the workers when coming off a less-than-distinguished tenure of government, especially when the nominees seemed more devoted to preventing President Zardari from being faced with the corruption cases against him than with solving the nation’s problems.

If it was sure which party would win if the PPP lost, at least then it might be clear who would be the next Prime Minister. In 1997, it was crystal clear that if the PPP lost, only the PML-N would win, and if it did, then Mian Nawaz Sharif would be Prime Minister. It was reasonably clear all along that Benazir Bhutto was the PPP’s candidate for Prime Minister.

At this point, however, there is no certainty which party will take office, because the PPP faces two candidates to replace it. While it may not have a natural prime ministerial candidate, both Mian Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan have their hats in the ring as replacements. For all the advantages of electoral democracy, it is not clear who are the possibilities for the prime ministership.

While the USA may be inconvenienced by this change at this point, it is also the first step heralding the end of the US occupation of Afghanistan. It even precedes the impending retirements of the Chief of Army Staff and the Chief Justice.

If the PPP retains office, it is unlikely to see Raja Pervaiz Ashraf remain PM. Though President Zardari will, probably, be re-elected, and will nominate the next PM, at this point it seems that the electorate will punish it for failing to control inflation or end the energy crisis.

The issues in the election are plentiful, and the PPP seems restricted to pleading that it is not the PML-N. From an out-and-out leftist party, it has evolved to one that is left of centre, but which has adopted the capitalist agenda wholeheartedly. As such, it might have an uphill task differentiating itself from the PML-N, which has also adopted that agenda, or the PTI and its reform agenda.

Worldwide, however, the USA seems in the process of having its allies re-elected. That is, perhaps, the only factor that allows the PPP some hope. But the US knows that the policy it is really interested in is determined by the army, not the elected government. So, perhaps, it will not mind a civilian change of guard.

The writer is a veteran journalist and founding member as well as executive editor of TheNation. Email: maniazi@nation.com.pk

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...inions/columns

April 02, 2013
Chen Weihua 0

When I moved from New York City to Washington DC three months ago, I had to call cable and utility companies to cancel the services to my old apartment and fix the Internet service in the new one. It was both time-consuming and painful. Each time I called, I was greeted by an automatic answering system that tried to navigate me to a solution. When that failed, I hit the button for a customer service representative. That was when the real pain started. All the representatives, I was told, were currently busy and the estimated waiting time was 18 minutes in one case and 32 minutes in another.

I sank into despair once when the phone was cut off accidentally after it had waited for nearly 15 minutes accompanied by service promotion ads and monotonous music from the other end. At that moment, I did miss my bank and utility companies in China where customer representatives seem always readily available. I don't know how many people like to talk to a machine. But this is an area where lots of jobs can be created in the United States, especially when unemployment is still high - 7.7 percent in February, albeit the lowest since December 2008.

That probably explains why when China created 12.66 million urban jobs in 2012, the US created only 1.8 million. And mind you, those Chinese jobs weren't taken from Americans despite the fact that many US politicians and average workers seem to think so, and even use it as an excuse to gain political capital. Two economists, Robert Z. Lawrence from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and Lawrence Edwards from the University of Cape Town shed light on the subject during their talk at the Peterson Institute in Washington on Tuesday.

After conducting an extensive survey of empirical literature to date and, more importantly, carrying out their own in-depth analyses of the evidence, they concluded that rapid growth in emerging economies is part of the solution to the US economic problems rather than their cause. The conclusions contradict several popular theories on the negative impact on the US of its trade with developing countries such as China and India.

While many critics, including some economists, believe that the decline in manufacturing in the US has been caused by trade and "off-shoring" of jobs, the two argued that the decline reflects a shift in domestic demand away from spending on goods and faster productivity growth in manufacturing, where fewer workers are needed to maintain the same output.

That also seems to apply to the service representatives I had tried to contact.

According to the two scholars and co-authors of Rising Tide: Is Growth in Emerging Economies Good for the United States?, increased trade can cause "short-term pain in the form of job losses, lower profits, and the dislocation of people and communities", but trade and investment strategies that encourage growth in emerging economies will continue to benefit both the US and its trade and investment partners in the foreseeable future.

Over the years, people have been puzzled by the growing negative feeling about trade among Americans. Why are they not happy when Chinese, Indians and people from other emerging economies help them save money with cheaper manufactured goods? Now we know, according to the economists, that the Americans have just picked the wrong guys to blame.

The author, based in Washington DC, is deputy editor of China Daily USA. The article has been reproduced from China Daily. Email: chenweihua@chinadailyusa.com

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...13/us-job-loss

Limits of American power
By Javid Husain

At the end of the Cold War and following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US emerged as the sole superpower. Because of its enormous economic and military power, the US loomed large like a colossus on the global geopolitical scene.

No other country in the world was even close to it in terms of economic and military strength. It was fashionable at that time to proclaim that in place of the bipolar world of the Cold War era, a unipolar world had dawned.
The period of unipolarity with the US as the dominant global power, however, did not last long. It was China’s phenomenal economic progress that effectively cut short America’s unipolar moment.
China under its paramount leader Deng Xiaoping embarked upon a programme of far-reaching economic reforms and opening to the outside world in 1979. These policies put China on the road to rapid economic progress and within a period of three decades catapulted it to the position of the second biggest economy of the world after overtaking the Japanese economy in 2010.
While America’s GDP ($16,333 billion) still remains ahead of that of China ($9,233 billion) in nominal dollar terms, China is catching up fast with the US economy because of its sustained high economic growth rates.
China’s rapid economic growth combined with fast-growing economies like those of India, Brazil, South Korea, Russia, Indonesia, Turkey and Malaysia is radically transforming the global geopolitical scene.
The centre of gravity of the world economy is shifting from the Atlantic region to Asia-Pacific region. No major decision affecting the world trade and economy can be taken now without the concurrence of the major Asia-Pacific countries. From the economic point of view, this transformation has already brought about a multipolar world.
It is inevitable that high growth rates of the emerging major economies will lead to increase in their military expenditures to protect their expanding global economic interests. By way of example, China is rapidly increasing its annual military budget, which in the current year would amount to $116 billion.
The same trend can be seen in the military budgets of other emerging major economies. American overwhelming superiority in the military field is likely to be challenged by the emerging great powers like China and Brazil after another two to three decades.
What are the policy implications of these trends for the rest of the world, particularly for Pakistan?
It is true that the US still remains by far the most powerful nation in the world, both economically and militarily. The US also has the advantages of advanced technology and “soft power” over its competitors. However, as noted earlier, the US economic and technological advantage over China and other rapidly growing economies is fast eroding. It is no longer in the position to dictate to the rest of the world in the economic field.
In fact, its vulnerabilities as the biggest indebted nation of the world will weaken its hand gradually in the management of international economic relations, despite the advantage that it enjoys of alliances with other advanced countries of Western Europe and Far East.
The relative decline of the US economic and military power will ultimately reflect itself in the structural changes to its disadvantage in international security, economic and commercial institutions like the United Nations Security Council, World Bank and IMF.
The US will also have to give up unilateralism and place increased reliance on multilateral cooperation, both within the framework of the United Nations and outside to realise its foreign policy objectives.
Moreover, it would have to bring its foreign policy objectives within the reach of its power by lowering its sights, by emphasising the use of political or diplomatic means over the use of military for their realisation and by carrying the international community with it, rather than working in defiance of its will.
Military adventures like those undertaken by it in Afghanistan and Iraq at enormous cost in blood and treasure would have to be rejected. The US failure to do so will generate avoidable tensions and crises in international relations.
As time passes, its ability to impose unilaterally effective economic sanctions against other nations will also decline. It will have to seek the cooperation of other economically-powerful nations to make those sanctions effective.
The effectiveness of unilateral US sanctions against other countries in pursuit of its strategic aims was questionable even in the past when it enjoyed overwhelming superiority in military and economic fields. Now when the relative US economic and military power is on the decline, its ability to impose its will on other nations through the use of its economic power will be weakened considerably.
It appears from the policy statements issued by the US leaders and representatives from time to time that the full implications of the relative decline of the US national power vis-à-vis its competitors have not fully sunk in their consciousness.
The way they continue to make threatening statements of military action against other nations in violation of international law and the UN Charter would lead one to conclude that the lessons of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have not been fully absorbed by the US foreign policy establishment.
In the case of Afghanistan, Washington should have learnt by now that its attempt to impose a government of its own choice on the Afghan people through the use of brute force has failed miserably. If it does not fundamentally and soon alter its approach, it is likely to leave a chaotic situation and a civil war after its military retreat from Afghanistan.
What the objective of durable peace in Afghanistan requires is national reconciliation and the establishment of a new political order in which different Afghan ethnic communities, including the Pashtuns, the Tajiks, the Hazaras and others, have their due share in power.
The Afghan Taliban, despite their obscurantism, are a political reality. They need to be engaged and brought into the mainstream of the Afghan politics. Washington must get rid of the inertia from which its Afghan policy currently suffers to engage the Taliban politically and set the stage for negotiations among the various Afghan parties.
Similarly, the US would have to change the course in dealing with Iran’s nuclear programme. Threatening statements, which have now become a routine on the part of the US representatives, will not achieve the desired results.
The objective of keeping Iran away from the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons can be achieved instead by recognising its right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium, persuading it to keep the level of enrichment at low levels compatible with the peaceful use of enriched uranium, keeping all Iranian nuclear facilities under stringent IAEA safeguards and lifting all sanctions against Iran.
Pakistan must maintain and where possible even strengthen further friendly relations and cooperation with the US, keeping in view its current position as the most powerful economic and military power in the world. However, our policymakers should be cognisant of the future trend of the relative decline of the US economic and military power. The test of our policymakers would lie in achieving the right balance between the compulsions of the immediate and the demands of long-term trends.
Policies of self-reliance and diversification of our foreign policy options are a must for the management of Pak-US relations in our best national interests. Further, our friendship with the US should not be at the expense of our critically important friendly relations with China or Iran.

The writer is a retired ambassador and the president of the Lahore Council for World Affairs. Email: javid.husain@gmail.com

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...american-power

__________________
"Nay! man is evidence against himself. Though he puts forth his excuses." Holy Qur'an (75:14-15)

The attack on Boston marathon is a highly condemnable act. The bombing was carried out on Patriots Day when hundreds of people had gathered to watch the iconic event for the city. Initially there are reports of three people dead including a 10 year old boy. Over a hundred are injured, including nine children. Many of the injured are in a critical state, and some with shattered limbs had face amputation. The possibility of more deaths cannot be ruled out.

The people of Pakistan have gone through tragic events of the sort for years now. Hundreds of families have lost their near and dear ones in terrorist attacks. Unsuspecting people traveling in buses, children attending schools and grownups offering prayers in mosques have been mowed down or turned into mincemeat. Similarly many innocent people have died in the US drone attacks which continue on their deadly mission unabated. It is therefore not difficult to understand the suffering of the affected people and their families in Boston.

What remains to be determined is who is responsible for the act. The FBI and police are highly trained and well equipped with the latest gadgetry to investigate crimes of the sort. Currently fingers are being pointed in two directions. A former FBI counterterrorism investigator told a British newspaper that the attack was reminiscent of the Madrid commuter train bombings, a coordinated attack using multiple explosive devices on March 11, 2004 which was attributed to an Al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist cell. The Al-Qaeda has developed the skills needed to launch an attack of the sort while it has also an international reach. The other possible source of the attack could be the US homegrown terrorists of various sorts including the white supremacists. Last year alone a gunman claimed 26 lives including kids and teachers in a firing spree at an elementary school in the Connecticut state, the US Army veteran Wade Michael Page killed six in a shooting rampage in Wisconsin, another gunman man killed 12 in Colorado while two people were killed and at least eight wounded in a shooting outside the Empire State Building in New York.

President Obama has assured that whoever is found guilty after investigation will feel the full weight of justice. There is a need in the US to rethink the whole strategy of dealing with those responsible for such incidents be they Al-Qaeda related terrorists or homegrown killers. This is all the more needed because whatever measures have been taken in the past have failed to achieve the results.

- See more at: http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013....iEG5JEn8.dpuf

April 17, 2013


Two blasts targeting a marathon’s finish line in Boston killing four people and leaving 100 injured while a third one rocking the John F. Kennedy Presidential library are without any shadow of a doubt totally condemnable and utterly reprehensible attacks.

As things stand, it would be premature to point a finger at the perpetrators, since the investigations are yet in the initial stages. There is on the other hand, consensus that this is a terrorist attack. Some quarters have been quick to indulge in callous and disgusting schadenfreude, citing Pakistan's own crippling losses which number in the thousands. Innocent lives lost, no matter where in the world must not be treated with the indignity of political point scoring. In this tradition, perhaps Pakistan ought to attempt a lead, given the attacks in Boston and the deaths of 30 at a wedding party in Afghanistan, including several young children, not to mention in Peshawar. As a whole, humanity must look within itself and reflect how matters got to such a head. It will be tempting to blame, allege, belittle and bemoan; but ultimately, it is a reality that the world over humanity is feeling unsafe. How can we protect ourselves once from hate and despair? No one country has the answer, and so far we all continue to suffer in varying degrees of severity.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...ons/editorials

The dominant reactions to the horrific bombing at the Boston Marathon on April 15 - which also happened to be the Patriots Day - have been so far: compassion for the victims, a maximal resolve to track down the perpetrators, and a pundit's notebook that reports to Americans that they have been protected against terrorist violence since 9/11 and that the best way to prevail against such enemies is to restore normalcy, avoid dwelling on the gory details, not memorialise the scene of the mayhem with reminders, and move forward with calm resolve and freedoms undiminished.

Such responses are far preferable to the war fever nurtured by leaders, the media and a vengeful public after the 9/11 attacks.

Of course, the scale and drama of the attack, while great, was not nearly as large or as symbolically resonant as the destruction of the World Trade Centre and damage to the Pentagon. Also, although each life is sacred, the magnitude of tragedy is somewhat conveyed by numbers, and the Marathon incident has so far produced three deaths as compared to 3,000, or a 1/1,000th.

Also important, the neocon presidency of George W Bush, was in 2001 prior to the attacks seeking a pretext to launch a regime-changing war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and the 9/11 events, as interpreted and spun, provided a supportive domestic climate for launching an aggressive war against the Baghdad regime that was undertaken despite the UN Security Council failure to lend its authority to such an American deadly geopolitical venture.

American grand strategy

In 2001, the preferred American grand strategy, as blueprinted by the ideologues of the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution, was given a green light by the Bush/Cheney White House even in the face of the UN red light.

Although there are many distressing continuities that emerge if the Obama presidency is compared in relation to the counter-terrorist agenda of his predecessors, but there are also some key differences of situation and approach. Obama came to Washington after the failed wars of Afghanistan and Iraq that had devastated two countries, seemingly beyond foreseeable recovery, added nothing to American security, and wasted trillions expended over the several years during which most Americans still felt the hardships and pain of the deepest economic recession since the 1930s.

In other words, temporarily at least, the Beltway think-tanks and the government are doing their best to manage global crises without embarking on further wars. The brief period of easy and victorious wars (quickly concluded, and with minimal casualties), as was the Gulf War of 1991 and the NATO Kosovo War of 1999, is over. Irresponsible and unlawful warfare seems no longer to be the centrepiece of America's foreign policy as it was in the first decade of the 21st century.

What unfortunately remains taboo at this moment of 24/7 commentary on American security policy is any type of self-scrutiny by either the political leadership or the mainstream media, but at least there are a few hopeful signs of awakening on the part of the citizenry.

Listening to a PBS programme hours after the Boston event, I was struck by the critical attitudes of several callers: it is horrible, but we in this country should not be too surprised, given our drone attacks that have unwittingly targeted weddings and funerals in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Another caller asked if it is not retribution for the kind of torture inflicted by American security forces acting under the authority of the government, verified by pictures of the humiliation of Islamic prisoners at Abu Ghraib or in light of the authoritative reports of officially sanctioned torture as detailed in the 577 page report of a task force chaired by two former senators - one a Republican, the other a Democrat - and containing senior military and security officials.

Is it not time that one among our politicians had the courage to connect these dots? Can we not ponder WH Auden's haunting line: "Those to whom evil is done/do evil in return"?
The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world. In some respects, the US has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks, and such could yet happen, especially if there is no disposition to rethink US relations to others in the world, starting with the Middle East.

America's military prowess
Some of us hoped that Obama's Cairo speech in 2009 was a beginning of such a process of renewal, timid in many ways, yet with a tonality that seemed to acknowledge that relations with the Islamic world needed a fundamental shift in the direction of reconciliation, including a move toward a more balanced approach to the Palestine/Israel situation. But as the months passed, what became evident, especially given the strong pushback by Israel and its belligerent leader, Bibi Netanyahu, was the accelerating back peddling of the Obama presidency.

Now at the start of his second presidential term, it seems that Obama has recognised the constraints, and seeks to confine his legacy to such domestic concerns as immigration, gun control and health care, abandoning the international agenda except to handle crisis diplomacy in a manner that does not disturb the global status quo or shorten America's global reach. Obama's trip to Israel, punctuated by his speech in Jerusalem on March 21, was more in the spirit of a love letter to the Israeli public than a genuine effort to bring a just peace, and contrasted with the much more visionary outlook exhibited in his early first term visit to the Middle East.

Self-scrutiny and mid-course correction of America's global role is long overdue. Such a process is crucial both for the sake of its own future security and for the wellbeing of others. Such adjustments will eventually come about either as a result of a voluntary process of self-reflection or through the force of events. How and when this process of reassessment occurs remains a mystery.

Until it does, America's military prowess and the abiding confidence of its leaders in hard power diplomacy makes the US a menace to the world and to itself. This is as true if Mitt Romney rather than Barack Obama was in the White House. The continuity reflects bipartisan support of a globe-girdling geopolitics, which has so far refused to acknowledge the evidence of national decline that is accentuated by pursuing an unsustainably ambitious global security role.

http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com/

In recent months, comprehensive immigration reform has become central to the political debate. Elected officials are in the process of developing the specifics of a law which will update current immigration system and address the 11 million undocumented individuals living in the US.

Polls show that nearly 60 per cent of Americans support immigration reform and the creation of a pathway to citizenship. Yet, we still do not know what this new law will look like. I believe that four provisions are key to making it a success:

Help people 'waiting in line': Address the visa backlog and amend visa caps

At present, US immigration policies are structured to promote family reunification. However, these policies were developed not so much as a way to value and strengthen families, but as a nativist tool to increase immigration opportunities to European-origin individuals.

When comprehensive immigration laws were developed and enacted in the mid-1900s, they sought to promote immigration from Europe by prioritising family-based petitions with opened pathways for migration for family members of US citizens, most of whom, at the time, had origins and thus family members in Europe.

In addition, they restricted immigration from non-European countries by limiting the number of visas available in each country. While these visa caps have been increased in the past, they still exist to limit immigration.

While there is no limit to visas available for the spouses, minor children and parents of citizens, there are limits on the number of visas available to the married children, siblings and extended family members of citizens as all family is sponsored by legal permanent residents. These limits mean that the "lines" for visas are extraordinarily long.
As of November 2012, 4.4 million people had been petitioned for and approved for a visa but are waiting for the availability of a visa. If you are lucky enough to be in one of the higher preference categories - an unmarried child of a US citizen - the wait averages seven years. However, demand in high migration countries creates backlogs so the wait reaches 15 years if you are from the Philippines and 20 if you are from Mexico.

While these numbers are dismal, they are worse for individuals lower on the preference categories. In fact, the longest wait time surpasses almost two lifetimes - 163 years for a citizen to reunite with a sibling from Mexico.

These wait times mean that undocumented migration is one of the few options open for individuals who do not want to be separated from family members for a lifetime. Additionally, it means that undocumented immigrants, who were fortunate enough to have family members petition for their legalisation upon their arrival, are still waiting for the availability of visas.

In the past, immigration reform has included increases to the number of visas available in each country. Similar steps to expand the visa pools are critical for the success of any comprehensive immigration reform bill. Though current proposals aim to clear this backlog, there needs to be consideration of how future backlogs will be prevented. Proposals for a shift away from family reunification to skill-based assessments could potentially reproduce these family-based backlogs, or worse deny visas and permanently separate families.
Help people who want to 'get in line': Eliminate the 10-year bar

While current immigration law provides pathways to legalisation for undocumented immigrants via the family reunification methods discussed above, many immigrants are dissuaded from even applying due to the complicated nature of this process.

Specifically, a 1996 immigration reform law enacted a 3- and 10-year bar process which requires individuals who entered "without inspection" (that is, without a visa) to return to their country of origin to obtain their visa. Once back, they face a 3-year bar to their return if their stay was less than one year and 10-year bar if their stay was longer.
While individuals can petition to lift this "bar" based on the undue hardship it will place on their citizen petitioners, it is a risky process with uncertain outcomes. As a result, many eligible undocumented immigrants choose not to apply for legalisation once they find out about the "bar".

Those individuals who choose to apply and risk being barred from the US have to return to their country of origin to file petitions with their consular office. In the Mexican case, this happens in Ciudad Juarez, a border city plagued by violence and death. Petitioners can wait for months to years for appointments and processing and often are separated from family members during this time.

Interviewing recently legalised young adults who had to travel to Mexico revealed that these stays often had significant emotional consequences. One man spoke about how he had to watch his son learn to talk via Skype. Another spoke of the post-traumatic stress he developed after spending a night hiding in his hotel room bathtub while there was a shoot-out outside.

On the other hand, individuals who are allowed to complete the legalisation process in the US, report fairly positive experiences with the immigration system. This suggests that the proposed immigration reform law should make provisions to eliminate this provision. Dropping the 3- and 10-year bars would allow, and in fact encourage, eligible individuals to legalise their status in a safe and streamlined manner. This would help to reduce the undocumented population by encouraging them to apply through some avenues that are already open.

Help people who want to legalise: Increase acceptable Documents

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, or IRCA, was the most recent immigration law to create a pathway to legalisation. While it legalised approximately 1.6 million undocumented immigrants, some eligible individuals were unable to apply due to a lack of acceptable documents to prove their work status and length of time in the US.
This was a lot harder for undocumented women to do, as they tended to work in private homes as housekeepers and nannies - where their employers did not want to confirm their employment - and did not have bills or accounts in their names, because it was their husbands' responsibility.

This historical fact suggests that finding documentation of an undocumented life is hard. Many undocumented individuals strive to leave no mark of their existence for fear of deportation. In addition, many have their accounts and/or bills set up under citizen family member or friend because having a social security number makes it easier to open these accounts.

Imagine if you spent most of your life paying in cash and had few, if any accounts, in your name. How would you prove that you have been somewhere? This is a consideration that needs to be addressed as the specifics of a legalisation pathway are developed.

A glimpse into how this can be successfully implemented can be taken from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals programme which provides a 2-year deferral of deportation and access to a work permit for undocumented youth who entered before the age of 16 and are under the age of 31.

To prove their length of residence in the US, these young adults have been using a variety of documents - Facebook check-ins, gym records and receipts. Immigration officials have been open to these various types of non-traditional documents which have made it easier for many eligible individuals to apply.

The successful deployment of this Deferred Action programme suggests that future programmes should replicate its process. The proposed law should include such provisions to improve the current system.

Help people become full members of society: Create a shorter path to citizenship

The current proposed immigration reform bill suggests that there will be a 13-year pathway to citizenship - a 10-year provisional residency followed by a 3-year permanent residency at which point they can apply for citizenship.

However, my discussions with undocumented young adults has made it clear that years of feeling socially rejected only makes them feel like they do not belong. Many feel that it becomes increasingly unlikely that these negative feelings will go away as they wait longer to legalise their status.

Longer wait times only serve to make sure that the people we intend to admit in the future will be less likely to act like full members of a society when we finally do admit them. While legalisation will help undocumented immigrants' transition out of what some refer to as second-class citizenship, lengthened wait times will only strengthen their feelings that they are second-class citizens who do not belong in the US. This not only hurts immigrants, but it hurts US society as a whole.

http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com/

It’s been a hard week for Boston. A native New Yorker, I’ve lived in this town for close to forty years. My wife and I raised three boys who hawked Coke and peanuts in the grandstands at Fenway Park, and cheered on the Celtics at Boston Garden. And for many years, we stood together each April and applauded the countless runners, from countless countries, who sped toward the finish line at the magnificent Boston Marathon.

Those warm memories are tarnished now. The harrowing events of last week have left us dazed by a cluster of senseless bursts of violence. Baghdad, Oklahoma City, Mumbai, Kabul, Moscow, Columbine, London, Newtown and so many other places around the globe, have been victimised by terrorising acts of one stripe or another. Now, unhappily, Boston joins those ranks. What twisted logic could have inspired, or what hidden trauma could have impelled anyone to inflict such wanton destruction on the lives of innocents? Today, one suspect is dead and the other is hospitalised and in custody. The nagging question remains: Why?

In one sense, it really doesn’t matter. Whatever the motivating force, the damage is done. The wounds are inflicted on families and communities. In every case, the acts are inexcusable. And yet, we care about “why” because we look for lessons and wonder what, if anything, we can do to prevent the next such catastrophe.

Two days after the Boston Marathon bombings, National Public Radio featured University of Arizona psychologist Jeff Greenberg, who studies how people respond to events that force them to confront their own mortality. “When death is percolating close to consciousness, people become more ‘us vs. them’ - they become defensive of their belief system, positive toward those they identify with and more negative to those who espouse a different belief system,” he said.

That human tendency lurks here, in the wake of last week’s events. We’ve learned that the suspects of the heinous acts of 15 April self-identified as Muslim. In response, some have already chosen to shun, and even vilify, that entire community of faith.

This despite the fact that we have already heard from Muslim leaders in Boston and beyond that these acts were crimes, pure and simple, and in no way justifiable by the Islamic faith.

Among the many lessons from the week’s events is this: it’s our job to prevent this kind of blaming and stigmatising of an entire group on account of the unconscionable acts of a few. Wholesale demonization of the “other” simply can’t be justified as serving the cause of security, justice, human understanding or, for that matter, any other value.

This message came through loud and clear at the interfaith memorial service held on 18 April in Boston’s South End. More than two thousand gathered and listened while Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith leaders, joined by Boston’s Mayor Tom Menino, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and President Barack Obama spoke words of comfort and inspiration.

We were reminded that we can’t allow another’s hate to make haters of us; that our task is to heal and rebuild, united by our common humanity. We were reminded that our community is defined not by violence, hatred or fear, but by love and generosity, as seen, for example, in the actions of those heroic bystanders and first responders who ran toward - rather than away from - danger, and aided those injured by the explosions. And we heard this resonant theme: that the dilemma of evil is that it inspires good; in our diversity, we have been united.

Patrick recalled the words of Martin Luther King: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness - only light can do that.” And Obama enjoined: “In the face of cruelty, we will choose compassion… we’ll choose friendship, we’ll choose love.” Can any of us doubt that an outstretched hand is more likely to promote an open mind and an open heart in the “other,” than a clenched fist?

We miss the point entirely if we allow the acts of extremists to force us into our own respective corners. They win if in response to their acts we poison our community, by shunning - instead of engaging - those whose culture or beliefs are different from our own.

Here in Boston - but not only here in Boston - that’s a race we need to run, and win, together.

(Michael Felsen is an attorney and President of Boston Workmen’s Circle, a 110-year old communal organisation dedicated to secular Jewish education, culture and social justice)


http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

Boston bombing seems to be an adventure of the two individual legal permanent residents of the USA. This seems to be local terrorism that is the part of the American culture.

FBI has come to the conclusion that explosion was managed “with pressure- cooker bombs packed with lethal explosives.” At least one pressure cooker and a torn black bag were part of the bomb. Three victims, Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, 29, a restaurant manager from Medford, Massachusetts and a Chinese student could not survive. According to law enforcement sources, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev admitted he and his brother learned how to make the pressure cooker bombs from internet magazine, Inspire.

The bombs were probably packed with shrapnel, metal shards, ball bearings and nails intended to intensify the effect of the explosion. These items were possibly part of the equipment in bags holding the bombs. The FBI agent described it as “disciplined crime.” It is said that this technique is used by Italian and Irish underworld gangsters involved in organized crimes.

A large number of victims of the Boston bombing are still in hospitals. At least 200 persons, including a Saudi national, injured and 6 are under critical condition. It is believed that bombs were stuffed into duffel bags and left on the ground. The bombs, according to officials, set off probably had remote controls from toy cars inside them and were triggered by cell phones.

The bombs exploded and tore the bodies of the victims. It was a sad, awful and hellish spectacle. Everybody seemed to be confused and horrified.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev is suspected of carrying out the deadly Boston Marathon bombing. He is also reported responsible for the killing an MIT campus police officer three days later. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died following a firefight with police. The blast injury, gunshot wounds and several other injuries were probably the cause of his death. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the wounded suspect, has been charged in his hospital bed.

Authorities believe Tamerlan Tsarnaev was probably responsible for a triple homicide back in 2011. The three killed were Brenden Mess, one of Tsarnaev’s friends and sparring partners, as well as two Jewish men, Erik Weissman and Raphael Teken.

FBI questioned Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011, possibly about his interest in certain activities or ties to Chechnya, but failed to find reasonable cause to detain him. It is almost confirmed that Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev were not affiliated with any international terrorist group.

The press is going overboard with the family of these guys in its efforts to make this an international incident. Several journalists are politicizing the issue and making the situation more horrible and grim. American justice system and society has created crime culture. These crimes are happening right under every American’s nose but these are ignored. But this particular event has been given publicity because two Muslims are involved in it. Americans know very well that all such criminal acts are part of their lifestyle and gun culture.

The violent American history is full of terrorist attacks. The society has lost its values and worth. The criminals are making their place in American society. Nonetheless, community intelligence can be helpful in assisting to reduce the crime rate.

It is time for Americans to get rid of ridiculous and useless war on terror coined by Bush, Blair and their massive teams.
Something is missing in American culture and that seems to be tolerance.

It is pertinent to mention here that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was born in Kyrgyzstan and Tamerlan Tsarnaev was born in Russia. Both brothers were in this country legally. The elder brother has been in this country for around a decade. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, was a legal permanent resident. He was follower of mainstream Sunni Islam. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an US citizen. His online profile shows his interest in his career and money-making. It is reported that both brothers were greatly influenced by Misha,” probably a Christian, who helped them in training.

The early reports of the police about the guys were confusing and lacking signs of professional maturity. The authorities probably tracked the suspect using the stolen Mercedes built-in navigation system.

The Boston tragedy shows flaws in the security system. Infrastructure certainly needs improvement. There are several flaws in the police strategy. The well-trained police could not puncture or halt the car though the fight continued for about an hour and the guy succeeded to flee from the scene.

“Then there are several questions. Where is the guy the boys had as a hostage for 30 minutes? Where is the Mercedes SUV they hi-jacked?” Thousands of police workers could not control the guys in the “battlefield”. Finally, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, identified as the first suspect died quickly following a firefight with police. The second wounded suspect was arrested later on.

According to an American writer the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing are not ‘white Americans’ but whiter than that race. “They are Caucasian.”
It seems an alien American group is at war with another alien American group: “both intimately familiar and frighteningly alien at the same time.” Race always played an important role in the history of America. An American critics says, “it’s all about race in racist America. Racism is America’s original sin. Racism will ultimately destroy America. It’s a really sad state of affairs.” All Americans are one way or the other immigrants except aboriginals.

The comic aspect is that almost everyone in the western media is trying to link this act of two suspected brothers to the “Muslim Extremists.” The ironic aspect of the Boston tragedy is that everyone is presenting their own conspiracy theory. It is just possible in future new irrational terms may be coined based on race and religion such as “white non-Islamic terrorists” and “white radical religious extremists “etc.

America’s so-called democratic values of justice, fairness and human decency are joke of the American heritage. It may be interesting to note that Social Media Campaign shows support For Boston Bombing suspects.

Boston bombings, according to Stella Tremblay, a New Hampshire state legislator were in fact orchestrated by the US government. She believes that drones and now ‘terrorist attacks’ are carried by American government.

According to FBI agents/investigators, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told that he and his brother were influenced by the Internet sermons of Anwar al-Awlaki who was later on killed in American drone strike. The involvement of two brothers in Boston bombing is a “very complicated and multilayered puzzle.”


Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a champion boxer in the Boston community when he married Katherine Russell, converted to Islam, in 2010 at a mosque in Boston’s Dorchester suburb. She worked up to 80 hours a week as a home-care aide in Cambridge where she lived with her husband. According to Tsarnaev’s mother, she adopted the Islamic name Karima Tsarnaeva. She has a baby child.

According to western media Tamerlan’s views had become increasingly radical. Facts will come to light sooner or later to form a concluded opinion. Cobin Rain says that “militant Islam” is a worldview, a belief system which funnily enough seems to spread faster and faster with every “victory” we proclaim.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

Current Affairs