Slashdot Mirror

The question of military installations is irrelevant. The only requirement is to have a genetic U.S. citizen parent. Went through this with my own kid 21 years ago.

Consular Report of Birth Abroad (FS-240)...
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html

Official rules are on the State Dept's site: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html

My own daughter was born overseas, and has one of these Consular Report of Birth Abroad (FS-240) birth certificates. It makes no difference if the child was born on or off of a military installation, only that one of the parents is already a U.S. citizen, and the genetic parent of that kid.

FWIW, Tokelau is on the US Department of State's list of "Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty", as well as the United Nations' list of "Non-Self-Governing Territories", the latter because it is considered to be a colony of New Zealand.

In English, Colombia is spelled with an O. Not a U. SO STOP MAKING SHIT UP.

Here, look it up for yourself:
https://maps.google.com/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/co.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35754.htm
http://www.colombiaemb.org/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1212798.stm

No, you are just an idiot.

65k is the current limit. However, there are some exclusions to that limit so 20k additional visas can be granted to those who got a masters (or higher) degree from a US university. And US Universities have free reign and they can use h1b visas without them counting against the limit.

http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2011NIVWorkloadbyVisaCategory.pdf makes it pretty obvious to anyone who isn't a moron that more than 65k are issued.

www.dvlottery.state.gov

"For DV-2013, natives of the following countries are not eligible to apply: BANGLADESH, BRAZIL, CANADA, CHINA (mainland-born), COLOMBIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR, EL SALVADOR, GUATEMALA, HAITI, INDIA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, PAKISTAN, PERU, PHILIPPINES, SOUTH KOREA, UNITED KINGDOM (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and VIETNAM"

You second link also is not much use to an unskilled Mexican without direct family in the US, except if an EMPLOYER is willing to fill out I-140 and wait 6-8 years to hire the employee.

If I'm reading things correctly, you would start with Form I-140, which covers workers of a range of skill sets, including unskilled workers.

Actually YOU would not. An EMPLOYER fills out Form I-140. Each year, 10,000 people from around the world are allowed to immigrate into the US under an Employment Based priority 3 (EB-3), "unskilled/other workers". Each country has a quota as well.

Our unskilled Mexican's EB-3 will take about 6-8 years to be processed.

So all our unskilled Mexican needs to do is to find a US company that wants to hire him 6-8 years in the future. Then that company will vouch for him and fill out an I-140. 6-8 years later, they may get to hire him.

So practically, the EB-3 visa program is useless to an unskilled Mexican unless you have a friend or distant family in the US who owns a business.

As of July 2012, petitions for EB-3 "other worker" Visas submitted before July 2006 are beginning to be evaluated.

Pretty sure you need a visa to go to Canada now. You cant just walk across the border.

Not yet. But it seems to be harder to get back into the U.S. than it used to be. It's interesting to see that it's possible to get back in with an "enhanced driver's license" now. I wonder if that's what Virginia is issuing.

https://www.dvlottery.state.gov/

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/immigrants_1340.html

HTH dude !

https://www.dvlottery.state.gov/

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/immigrants_1340.html

HTH dude !

Without arguing the point of whether this law should exist or not, or whether police should or should not try to determine any person's immigration status, as a practical solution for the pragmatic brown US citizen who must travel occasionally in Arizona, but does not have an Arizona driver's license, I suggest a US Passport Card: http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppt_card/ppt_card_3921.html

The passport card is the size of a driver's license and easily fits in a wallet. Only US citizens can get them. Handy-dandy for border patrol checkpoints from Texas to California, and you can even go to Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean, and Bermuda and back by land or sea (but not by air) without having to carry your full-sized passport.

From http://pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/consent_agreements/pdf/Raytheon_DraftChargingLetter_03.pdf

(12) The ITAR provides a t 22 C.F.R. 5 127(d) that no person may willfully cause,
or aid, abet, counsel, demand, induce, procure or permit the commission of any act
prohibited by, or the omission of any act required by 22 U.S.C. 2778, 22 U.S.C. $ 2779,
or any regulation, license, approval, or order issued thereunder.

Obviously being a wholly owned subsidiary is irrelevant.

Their numbers must be off. First of all, Sweden has a larger Muslim population than Christian.

I presume you're referring here to them classifying Sweden in the "non-Catholic Christian" category. I guess there's "Christian" in the sense of "fervent believer" and "Christian" in the sense of "I guess I believe in Jesus" and "Christian" in "I'm a member of the Church of Sweden even if that's just by default", but according to the "Religious Demography" section of the page on Sweden in the U.S. State Department 2010 Report on Religious Freedom:

Religious membership or affiliation is concentrated in a few major denominations. According to the Church of Sweden (Lutheran), an estimated 71.3 percent (6,664,000 persons) of citizens are members; other Protestant groups total approximately 4.4 percent (400,000) of the population. Membership in the Church of Sweden has decreased steadily since it separated from the state in 2000. During 2009, 73,396 members left the Church (1.6 percent of registered members). Church-led studies found that individuals left primarily for economic reasons: membership carries a tax on income, normally less than 1 percent (separated members can still attend services).

Researchers estimate that approximately 5 percent (450,000 to 500,000) of the population is Muslim, although the officially sanctioned Muslim Council of Sweden, for government funding purposes, reported only 110,000 active participants.

Second of all, I have yet to find a Swede who believes in heaven.

As the paper says, they got the data from the World Values Survey:

Data for belief in hell, belief in heaven, belief in God, and religious attendance were taken from the 1981–1984, 1990–1993, 1994–1999, 1999–2004, and 2005–2007 waves of the World Values Surveys (WVS) and European Value Surveys [13]. Some countries included the question in multiple survey years (individual survey participants only participated once); others included the question at only one data collection wave. In total, these data were based on participants from 67 countries (N = 143,197; mean N per country = 2137, range = 3629016). Weighted means were computed for each country based on a proportional weighting variable supplied with the WVS.

Belief in heaven, hell and God was assessed with the oral question, “Which, if any, of the following do you believe in?”, followed by a list of concepts including “Heaven,” “Hell” and “God”. Accepted answers were Yes and No. Religious attendance was assessed with the question, “Apart from weddings, funerals, and christenings, about how often do you attend religious services these days?”; the response options were 1 = More than once a week, 2 = Once a week, 3 = Once a month, 4 = Only on special holy days/Christmas/Easter, 5 = Other specific holy days, 6 = Once a year, 7 = Less than once a year, 8 = Never or practically never. A weighted average was computed for each country across all available data, using the supplied individual weighting variable.

Sadly, the raw data is in formats that require SPSS, SAS, or STATA, so I can't just dig in to them and see what the data for Sweden are. However, they have some on-line data analysis modules, but the "believe in heaven" and "believe in hell" questions only showed up, at least for Sweden, for pre-2000 surveys, and show about 90% didn't believe in hell and 10% did while about 70% didn't believe in heaven and 30% did, giving the 20% difference in the graph.

So the data might be off by virtue of being old.

Their numbers must be off. First of all, Sweden has a larger Muslim population than Christian.

I presume you're referring here to them classifying Sweden in the "non-Catholic Christian" category. I guess there's "Christian" in the sense of "fervent believer" and "Christian" in the sense of "I guess I believe in Jesus" and "Christian" in "I'm a member of the Church of Sweden even if that's just by default", but according to the "Religious Demography" section of the page on Sweden in the U.S. State Department 2010 Report on Religious Freedom:

Religious membership or affiliation is concentrated in a few major denominations. According to the Church of Sweden (Lutheran), an estimated 71.3 percent (6,664,000 persons) of citizens are members; other Protestant groups total approximately 4.4 percent (400,000) of the population. Membership in the Church of Sweden has decreased steadily since it separated from the state in 2000. During 2009, 73,396 members left the Church (1.6 percent of registered members). Church-led studies found that individuals left primarily for economic reasons: membership carries a tax on income, normally less than 1 percent (separated members can still attend services).

Researchers estimate that approximately 5 percent (450,000 to 500,000) of the population is Muslim, although the officially sanctioned Muslim Council of Sweden, for government funding purposes, reported only 110,000 active participants.

Second of all, I have yet to find a Swede who believes in heaven.

As the paper says, they got the data from the World Values Survey:

Data for belief in hell, belief in heaven, belief in God, and religious attendance were taken from the 1981–1984, 1990–1993, 1994–1999, 1999–2004, and 2005–2007 waves of the World Values Surveys (WVS) and European Value Surveys [13]. Some countries included the question in multiple survey years (individual survey participants only participated once); others included the question at only one data collection wave. In total, these data were based on participants from 67 countries (N = 143,197; mean N per country = 2137, range = 3629016). Weighted means were computed for each country based on a proportional weighting variable supplied with the WVS.

Belief in heaven, hell and God was assessed with the oral question, “Which, if any, of the following do you believe in?”, followed by a list of concepts including “Heaven,” “Hell” and “God”. Accepted answers were Yes and No. Religious attendance was assessed with the question, “Apart from weddings, funerals, and christenings, about how often do you attend religious services these days?”; the response options were 1 = More than once a week, 2 = Once a week, 3 = Once a month, 4 = Only on special holy days/Christmas/Easter, 5 = Other specific holy days, 6 = Once a year, 7 = Less than once a year, 8 = Never or practically never. A weighted average was computed for each country across all available data, using the supplied individual weighting variable.

Sadly, the raw data is in formats that require SPSS, SAS, or STATA, so I can't just dig in to them and see what the data for Sweden are. However, they have some on-line data analysis modules, but the "believe in heaven" and "believe in hell" questions only showed up, at least for Sweden, for pre-2000 surveys, and show about 90% didn't believe in hell and 10% did while about 70% didn't believe in heaven and 30% did, giving the 20% difference in the graph.

So the data might be off by virtue of being old.

The H-1B is for individuals at the top of their respective field, and it only accounts for 65,000 out of more than 6 million visas alloted per year.

No, the immigrant E-1 Employment First Preference visa is for individuals at the top of their fields (the three subcategories include: [1] "persons with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics" who must "must have extensive documentation showing sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in their fields of expertise", [2] "Outstanding professors and researchers with at least three years experience in teaching or research, who are recognized internationally", and [3] "Multinational managers or executives who have been employed for at least one of the three preceding years by the overseas affiliate, parent, subsidiary, or branch of the U.S. employer."; source)

The H-1B is for "Persons in Specialty Occupations which requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge requiring completion of a specific course of higher education", not "people at the top of their fields". (Well, there are also H-1B subcategories for fashion models, and for Department of Defense Cooperative Research and Development projects or Co-production projects; source and source.)

Say what you will about work visas in general, and granted the H-1B lasts longer than most other work visas, but H-1B visas are not where I would begin making cuts! They allow us to sap the smartest minds from other coutries, and use them for our own benefit, to benefit our own industries and own economy.

In general, snapping up the best minds is the purpose of the E-1 and, to a lesser extent, E-2 immigrant visas, not the H-1B. The H-1B is more about getting human special-purpose parts for industrial machines, not the "brightest minds".

The H-1B is for individuals at the top of their respective field, and it only accounts for 65,000 out of more than 6 million visas alloted per year.

No, the immigrant E-1 Employment First Preference visa is for individuals at the top of their fields (the three subcategories include: [1] "persons with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics" who must "must have extensive documentation showing sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in their fields of expertise", [2] "Outstanding professors and researchers with at least three years experience in teaching or research, who are recognized internationally", and [3] "Multinational managers or executives who have been employed for at least one of the three preceding years by the overseas affiliate, parent, subsidiary, or branch of the U.S. employer."; source)

The H-1B is for "Persons in Specialty Occupations which requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge requiring completion of a specific course of higher education", not "people at the top of their fields". (Well, there are also H-1B subcategories for fashion models, and for Department of Defense Cooperative Research and Development projects or Co-production projects; source and source.)

Say what you will about work visas in general, and granted the H-1B lasts longer than most other work visas, but H-1B visas are not where I would begin making cuts! They allow us to sap the smartest minds from other coutries, and use them for our own benefit, to benefit our own industries and own economy.

In general, snapping up the best minds is the purpose of the E-1 and, to a lesser extent, E-2 immigrant visas, not the H-1B. The H-1B is more about getting human special-purpose parts for industrial machines, not the "brightest minds".

The speech by Hillary Clinton took place on Wednesday, May 23rd at a Gala event at the Special Operations Command in Tampa, FL. Her speech was transcribed by the State Department (as all of her speeches are), and the transcription is hosted at the State Department's website.

I've re-hosted the original article by Karen DeYoung and Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post.

I can't say i'm surprised The Washington Post completely misinterpreted a government official's speech, but the conclusions these writers jumped to, and i fell for, certainly carry more brevity than the conclusions found in your everyday newspaper article.

This is why i usually prefer CSPAN. But i will certainly look a bit more into detail about each article i find interesting before i post it here.

Sorry about that, folks.

Yeah, the government had nothing to do with the creation of the internet, the roads he uses to drive to work every day, the electrical grid that powers the computers used to access Facebook, the funding of the educational institutions that formed the initial userbase of Facebook, or the propping up of the financial system that completely shat itself in 2008! We better hope this John Galt doesn't decide to withdraw his enlightened ability to create wealth from our society or we're done for!

Seriously, if you could stop masturbating to Ayn Rand for three seconds and actually think about it, maybe you'd realize that public investment in infrastructure and research is a huge part of what made this country what it is, and the fact that we've been underfunding them for almost thirty years is, while hardly the single cause of our national decline, certainly not helping things.

And the Slashdot summary is, as usual, a fucking travesty. The "renounce your citizenship specifically because of taxes and you're not allowed back in the country" clause is already law and is part of the form you have to sign to renounce your citizenship. What the article actually says is that Schumer and Bob Casey are proposing a special tax on people who renounce their citizenship specificially to avoid taxes.

the US considers that an automatic renouncement of citizenship even if the new country doesn't require such

Not automatically. US law allows for dual citizenship, with some caveats:

U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct. The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause.

The White House, Department of Defense, the State department and the CIA beg to differ.

The Department of Defense says "Navy Looks to Bolster Capabilities in Persian Gulf" (2012):
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67586

The State Department notes in a briefing by Secretary of State Clinton on her visit to India in May 2012 that peace in the Persian Gulf is important:
http://translations.state.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/05/201205085219.html#axzz1vAEAsbH0

The White House's press briefing includes references to carriers in the Persian Gulf (2012):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/09/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-4912/

This is the CIA's World Fact Book entry for Iran. Look at the map saying "Persian Gulf".
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

The State Department shows the same map for Iran ("Persian Gulf"):
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/ir/

The CIA's Persian Gulf War Task Force was last reviewed and updated in January 2012.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/gulfwar/index.htm

The White House, Department of Defense, the State department and the CIA beg to differ.

The Department of Defense says "Navy Looks to Bolster Capabilities in Persian Gulf" (2012):
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67586

The State Department notes in a briefing by Secretary of State Clinton on her visit to India in May 2012 that peace in the Persian Gulf is important:
http://translations.state.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/05/201205085219.html#axzz1vAEAsbH0

The White House's press briefing includes references to carriers in the Persian Gulf (2012):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/09/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-4912/

This is the CIA's World Fact Book entry for Iran. Look at the map saying "Persian Gulf".
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

The State Department shows the same map for Iran ("Persian Gulf"):
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/ir/

The CIA's Persian Gulf War Task Force was last reviewed and updated in January 2012.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/gulfwar/index.htm

Most of your reply isn't really relevant because I've agreed with you that the US has serious problems and that some of them are getting worse. In that context, pointing to specific problems doesn't really do much. But it may be instructive to look at your examples:

Tarek Mehanna is an appalling example and not the only such case. Ward Churchill was guilty of severe plagiarism. It is true that people paid more attention to him and the plagiarism accusations because of his politically controversial statements, but that's a much weaker claim (and no one seriously disagrees with the plagiarism issue in his case). The issues related to recording the police are also a serious one and one that is really despicable. It varies a lot from state to state, and some states are actually improving (see for example, the ongoing legislation in Connecticut that will allow people to sue cops who try to interfere with recording http://stratford.patch.com/articles/bill-protects-citizens-recording-police-a8140340). In Pakistan, that wouldn't even be an issue because the police or military would just beat up the person recording and take the recording. Pihkal is a potential example of where someone was targeted for their speech, although actual violations of research and security policies were found in the lab. Your statement about the DMCA is just factually wrong- the DMCA prohibits circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms, it doesn't prohibit discussion of how to do so. The PROTECT_Act has some pretty stupid provisions, and trying to make virtual porn illegal is a violation of free speech by many notions. In Pakistan essentially all pornography is essentially illegal and they regularly block pornographic websites http://tribune.com.pk/story/293434/pta-approved-over-1000-porn-sites-blocked-in-pakistan/. Free speech zones are a really wretched idea and do implicitly violate actual free speech protections, although weak forms that only restrict time, place and manner without any content aspect are probably ok (and in fact courts in the last few years have struck down many attempts to restrict anything beyond that- see for example what happened with Texas Tech in 2004).

In the US one is subject to such searches if one is going on a plane

This amounts to millions of people subjected to searches, in a systematic and humiliating way.

You cut off part of my sentence which ended with "and one doesn't go through the backscatter screening", and that's quite relevant here. About 2 million people are subject monthly to pat-downs http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/may/17/janet-napolitano/homeland-security-chief-stresses-very-very-very-fe/. That estimate includes people who are getting pat-downs after they've already triggered some sort of warning, not just randomized pat-downs or op-out pat-downs. Again, the Pakistan situation is very different- the police and military can stop anyone on the streets and search them with no justification. I don't know if that results in more total searches in the US, but if it does, it is only because the US is a much larger country. As a percentage matter, the result would be pretty clear.

Any violation of this sort in Pakistan is actually orders of magnitude worse than the US

[citation needed]

Sure. http://www.hrw.org/asia/pakistan, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/sca/154485.htm,

Your version of the Philippines' history is laughably wrong.

No, it's actually spot-on, and now I must insist that you provide citations for any 'facts' you present.

We gained ownership of the islands around the turn of the century, not by the war as you imply.

Umm, no -- you lost at exactly the turn of the century -- the philipine/american war was from 1899â"1902, and we won. You were owned by the US until the Treaty of Manila in 1946. You may recall that within that 44 year time period, both world wars happened. The islands were occupied by japanese forces during WWII, true enough -- but less than a year after the war ended and we'd licked our wounds, we returned and cleared the deck.

It's true that despite initially supporting the Philippines independence movement from Spain, we waged our own war against a rebelling populace after we received the islands in the Treaty of Manila

You imply that the struggle ended; the declaration of martial law in 1972, assassination of opposing party leaders in 1983, a rigged election in 1986 which eventually led to the incumbent fleeing to Hawaii with his cabinet, the removal from office of the current president in 2001 amid stories of corruption, and into the present now with several militant factions suspected of ties to terrorism including the Moro National Liberation Front, New People's Army, and the Abu Sayyaf.

The destroyed infrastructure was of the same pre-Industrial-Revolution kind that was largely being willfully destroyed elsewhere in the world

But it was destroyed. If I crash my friend's 20 year old car, I don't just tell him "Well, everyone else was junking these to, so this was totally, like, a favor to you." No, I help him get another vehicle.

In the interrim, the Philippines prospered alongside the US - we established a modern health care system rivaling our own at the time, ended slavery, formed a national education system and civil bureaucracy. Throughout the 1930s efforts toward releasing the Philippines as a free and independent nation were well underway

Yes -- because the US helped rebuild your country after the war, in the same way it helped the UK and France rebuild. You paint a picture of US neglect of the philipine islands, when in fact it had major involvement. Your country attempted to create free public education while it was still under spanish rule as early as 1863, but it wasnt until the 1930s, under US control, that the system was fully realized -- thanks in no small part to programs like JEEP.

After the official withdrawal of US troops, the Philippine Army )with large participation from underground movements) waged a guerilla war with support from what US remnants remained - against the unpopular Japanese-puppet regime. When we reinvaded in 1944...

If by "we" you mean the United States, Mexico, Australia, as well, then sure. But don't try and claim sole credit for that -- it was a 4 country effort.

You paint a picture of an invading US army laying waste to the country and then holding onto it during and after WWII, when the exact opposite is far closer to the truth.

No, I was trying to paint a picture of a country that, like many, suffered greatly during the world wars, and was assisted in its rebuilding by its ally (and owner), the United States, who after making sure the country could stand on its own two feet, ceded independence. Since then, we've done our best to render economic aid because the country is still not stable and over the past decade has seen a rise in militancy due in no small part to a failing economic infrastructure.

The lesson here: If you're being sued in a US court and you're not a US company, ignore it because you won't have to pay for it. And the US company will still have to pay it's lawyers while looking idiotic.

This is bad advice. If you are being sued, you should consult with an attorney to determine what you should do. Doing nothing may very well be the best course of action, depending on the situation. But you shouldn't assume that you won't have to pay. A sufficiently motivated plaintiff can seek out foreign counsel to argue the case for enforcing the foreign judgment. The plaintiff may face an uphill battle (assuming you bother to show up when the fight has been brought to your front door), but it is possible that the foreign judgment will be enforced. Enforcement of Judgments.

Six States ... and two Territories (ACT and NT). While they are constitutionally treated a bit differently than the states (e.g. less representatives in the Federal Senate), they both also have their own legislatures/governments.

So for most intents and purposes, Australia has 8 separate 'subdivisions' that are analogous to States in the USA (even if two of them are not technically States).

Simple map showing location of the 8 States/Territories here

you can't fly to cuba from the US directly anyway

You can now, actually. One of the first things Obama did was relax the travel embargo rules to allow exactly this.

You can go there without a license if you are:

• Persons visiting a close relative (any individual related to a person by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more than three generations removed from that person or from a common ancestor with that person) who is a national of Cuba, and persons traveling with them who share a common dwelling as a family with them. There is no limit on the duration or frequency of such travel. (According to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, third country nationals who reside in Cuba are considered Cuban nationals.)
• Journalists and supporting broadcasting or technical personnel (regularly employed in that capacity by a news reporting organization and traveling for journalistic activities).
• Official government travelers on official business.
• Members of international organizations of which the United States is also a member (traveling on official business).
• Full-time professionals, whose travel transactions are directly related to research in their professional areas, provided that their research:
  1) is of a noncommercial, academic nature
  2) comprises a full work schedule in Cuba
  3) has a substantial likelihood of public dissemination.
• Full-time professionals whose travel transactions are directly related to attendance at professional meetings or conferences in Cuba that are organized by an international professional organization, institution, or association that regularly sponsors such meetings or conferences in other countries. An organization, institution, or association headquartered in the United States may not sponsor such a meeting or conference unless it has been specifically licensed to sponsor it. The purpose of the meeting or conference cannot be the promotion of tourism in Cuba or other commercial activities involving Cuba, or to foster production of any bio-technological products.
• Employees of a U.S. telecommunications services provider or an entity duly appointed to represent such a provider traveling incident to: 1) the commercial marketing, sales negotiation, accompanied delivery, or servicing of authorized telecommunications-related items; or 2) participation in telecommunications-related professional meetings for the commercial marketing of, sales negotiation for, or performance under contracts for the provision of telecommunications services, or the establishment of facilities to provide telecommunications services.
• Individuals regularly employed by a producer or distributer of agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices or an entity duly appointed to represent such a producer or distributer traveling incident to the commercial marketing, sales negotiation, accompanied deliver, or servicing in Cuba of such items.

For every other reason/visitor you need to get permission from the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control.

Auto-complete suggestions for Kanji are cycled through in IME when trying to type out a name, so it is very easy (if not second nature) to type out a name in a Google search box and hit "submit" on an auto-completed suggestion. I do this all the time when searching for the name of a politician or celebrity. Japanese names also have the potential to be a bit more unique than English names in writing. Even the Japanese equivalent of a name like "John Doe" could be written several different ways. Over 2,000 characters in one of the Japanese writing systems, Kanji, are devoted specifically to naming (Jinmeiyo Kanji) and the Japanese Ministry of Justice plans to add nearly 600 more Kanji to that list within the next couple of years to encourage unique names. That isn't to say that you wouldn't get a few unrelated individuals in any name search, but it does give you an idea of the possibilities for unique names.

Some people have asked why the Petitioner doesn't simply change his name. My understanding is that your legal name is tied to your family registry, or Koseki, where everyone must share the same last name. Births and deaths, marriages and divorces, even your citizenship is recorded on your family's Koseki (social security numbers do not exist in Japan). He could easily register an alias, but changing his legal name could be more difficult because of the Koseki system. The only circumstances that I've personally seen of a Japanese citizen changing their legal name was when they married and formed a new Koseki, or were adopted onto a spouse's Koseki. Even if he was successful in changing his legal name, his educational background, degrees, and previous job recommendations would all be linked to his original name. That might make him stand out and appear even more suspicious to a prospective employer.

Discrimination against job applicants is a very big human rights issue in Japan. There are detective agencies devoted to doing background checks on job applicants, including finding ways to illegally get their hands on a person's Koseki just to see if they are of Buraku lineage (read up on the "National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities" section in the U.S. Department of State's Human Rights Report on Japan). Businesses do not want to hire an employee who could bring the slightest hint of scandal or poor image to their company; even if the scandal comes from mistaken identity, or a long-forgotten familial relation.

Could the Petitioner actually be a criminal, or yakuza, who is just looking to get some money out of Google? Possibly. But it is equally possible that the Petitioner is genuinely suffering from a case of mistaken identity or association. How unfortunate and shameful would it be if the auto-complete was for the name of some estranged, distant relative, for example? It is difficult not to empathize with someone in this sort of situation, especially in an economic recession.

Thank you, I have had a look at it. But that level of details in insufficient. What I want is a person-to-money breakdown. E.g., such citizen of Russia has received such sum of money from such NGO, funded from such NED grant... I.e., I want a law analogous to the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act. It's a pity that no such law exists in Russia. But the U.S. Government could demand its agents to act accordingly, and it would show good will. (I'm not talking about spies -- but about benefitiaries of the USAID grants in Russia).

"By the way, what exactly is wrong with setting up an NGO in another country?"

Nothing at all. You seem to have missed my point that it's the lack of transparency that is a problem.

"But if you are an American, the U.S. State Dept is accountable to you."
Indeed it is. And last I checked the Russian foreign ministry was supposed to be accountable to the Russian citizens and not to the Americans.

"Don't you think that we, citizens of Russia (forget Putin for now!), have a right to know what exactly were the 160 millions American dollars spent for?"
You know what's really funny? Whether you are a citizen of Russia or the US you can go to the website of the US State Department at http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/bib/ , look at its budget, and see what it exactly it spends the US tax payer's money on. You will also see that the total budget of the State Dept. is over 16 billion dollars, making the amount it spent on the Russian NGOs less than one percent of its total budget. Once again, that tells you how much attention the US devotes to what is happening in Russia.

By the way, what exactly is wrong with setting up an NGO in another country? Saudi Arabia has spent quite a bit more than $160 million on various Islamic cultural organizations and educational programs in the US. As long as those organizations do not break the law, nobody can stop the Saudis from doing that. Have any US-funded NGO's broken any Russian laws? Or did they steal oil from themselves like Khodorkovsky?

Everything going on in that region can be traced back to the pipelines. There is billions of dollars to be made. Natural gas is really cheap right now, there is lots of it, so the strategy is to destroy everybody else's pipeline so you can charge monopoly prices for transmission in yours. The US military is used for these energy companies. They are still in Afghanistan because it's an important transmission route for gas and oil. There is bombing and fighting is Homs Syria because that's where the construction of the Arab pipeline is stalled. The US is now supporting the TIPA pipeline, which will go through Afghanistan. The competition would be the TI pipeline, which is the real reason for all the saber rattled over Iran.

Here's a clue: Why is Gohmert trying to carve out an independent province in Pakistan? Because that's where the TAPI pipeline would be built through. The Pakistanis are rightfully pissed about it.

http://travel.state.gov/passport/faq/faq_1741.html first item in the "Passport - Minors" section.

A federal or state law enforcement agency may request the denial of a passport on several regulatory grounds under 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial are a federal warrant of arrest, a federal or state criminal court order, a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition. The HHS child support database and the Marshals Service WIN database are checked automatically for entitlement to a passport. Denial or revocation of a passport does not prevent the use of outstanding valid passports.

Not excluding the US, according to the state department: http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html#Fourteen

What will happen if my Electronic Passport fails at a port-of-entry?

The chip in the passport is just one of the many security features of the new passport. If the chip fails, the passport remains a valid travel document until its expiration date. You will continue to be processed by the port-of-entry officer as if you had a passport without a chip.

Biometric passports are not simply RFID. Here's the handy Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passport#Data_protection See the BAC, EAC, and AA sections. Information on the USA passport can be found here: http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html#Twelve

Basic Access Control (BAC). BAC protects the communication channel between the chip and the reader by encrypting transmitted information. Before data can be read from a chip, the reader needs to provide a key which is derived from the Machine Readable Zone [Mrz]: the date of birth, the date of expiry and the document number. If BAC is used, an attacker cannot (easily) eavesdrop transferred information without knowing the correct key. Using BAC is optional.

Passive Authentication (PA). PA prevents modification of passport chip data. The chip contains a file (SOD) that stores hash values of all files stored in the chip (picture, finger print, etc.) and a digital signature of these hashes. The digital signature is made using a document signing key which itself is signed by a country signing key. If a file in the chip (e.g. the picture) is changed, this can be detected since the hash value is incorrect. Readers need access to all used public country keys to check whether the digital signature is generated by a trusted country. Using PA is mandatory.

Active Authentication (AA). AA prevents cloning of passport chips. The chip contains a private key that cannot be read or copied, but its existence can easily be proven. Using AA is optional.

quoted from http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html#One

What will happen if my Electronic Passport fails at a port-of-entry?

The chip in the passport is just one of the many security features of the new passport. If the chip fails, the passport remains a valid travel document until its expiration date. You will continue to be processed by the port-of-entry officer as if you had a passport without a chip.

This is beautiful, just another example of those in power abusing their rights. Well put. +1

I'm pretty sure citizenship does entitle you to a passport.

Some restrictions apply.

YMMV. Past performance is no guarantee of future profits. Do not taunt happy fun ball.

...if you're going for a car analogy.

http://travel.state.gov/passport/faq/faq_1741.html

Q:My passport has been damaged. Can I continue to use this passport?
        a:If your passport has been significantly damaged, especially the book cover or the page displaying your personal data and photo, you will need to apply for a new passport. You will need to submit the following in person (See Where to Apply):

                The damaged passport
                Form DS-11
                All documents required by Form DS-11, including citizenship documentation (i.e. birth certificate)

        Water damage, a significant tear, unofficial markings on the data page, missing visa pages (torn out), a hole punch and other injuries may constitute "damage" requiring use of Form DS-11.

        Normal wear of a U.S. passport is understandable and likely does not constitute "damage". For instance, the expected bend of a passport after being carried in your back pocket or fanning of the visa pages after extensive opening and closing. In most cases of normal wear, you may renew your passport by mail using Form DS-82.

        Please remember, if you try to renew a significantly damaged passport using Form DS-82, you may be asked by the Passport Agency to apply again using Form DS-11 and incur additional fees./

quoted from http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html#One

What will happen if my Electronic Passport fails at a port-of-entry?

The chip in the passport is just one of the many security features of the new passport. If the chip fails, the passport remains a valid travel document until its expiration date. You will continue to be processed by the port-of-entry officer as if you had a passport without a chip.

"To have a passport is privilege, it's not entitled to you by citizenship," Priest said

The law disagrees completely - http://law.justia.com/cfr/title22/22-1.0.1.6.33.5.5.1.html. Note there are grounds for denying a passport, but there are also grounds for puttting you in prison - that doesn't mean not being in prison is a priviledge.

Or if you prefer statements made to the public of how the government interpretes the law:

Every United States citizen is entitled to a U.S. passport provided that they, or an adult acting on a child's behalf, comply with all applicable requirements, and that there is no statutory or regulatory reason to deny the passport.

        - http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/family/family_864.html

Heck it uses the word "entitled"!

Here is what the Feds say

But it seems to me that an "Executive agreement" as it is defined in that reference is pretty much unconstitutional.

I think your average reasonable man would say that a Treaty, duly ratified, has the force of law and is applicable to all citizens.

An Agreement, on the other hand, would have the parties conduct themselves in a certain manner (follows certain protocols or procedures) with respect o the subject matter. but do so within the framework of the law.

So, while an "Agreement" would have the Feds use the existing U.S. laws to enforce the goals, they would still have to follow the law (i.e. get a court order to shut down a site).

A Treaty, on the other hand, would have the force of law and presumably not require the government to get a court order.

That's my guess anyway. But only a fool relies on internet posts for their information eh?

They already do, at least as far as foreign reporters are concerned:

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1276.html

You'd not be admitted to the country on the sole basis of being a blogger so I'm not sure why it would qualify as a special status once you'd crossed the border.

Pre Iraq, the Muslim world was united, Muslims would never attach Muslims, and attacking a Mosque was unthinkable. Now they are at each others throats and bombing each other's Mosques.

Muslims have always been the majority of casualties in terror attacks by Islamic fundamentalists.
Here is a state department report on the demographics of terror.

See also this, this and this.

In 2010, there were 298,187 B1 and B2 visas granted to Indian nationals, 508,968 to Chinese ones, 83k to Philippines etc., for a total of 3.68M B1/B2 visas - http://www.travel.state.gov/xls/FY10NIVDetailTable.xls

Since an individual needs a US visa to get to San Francisco in order to board the Blueseed vessel, they'll be able to come back on shore as long as they spend less than 180 days a year on the mainland.

In case of severe storm or other emergency, the ship can come to shore under force majeure and preserve its jurisdiction, which will be an open registry state like Malta or The Bahamas.

In 2010, 3.6 million B visas have been granted - http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/graphs/graphs_4399.html

I haven't been to the US since they introduced the eye scan for citizens of my home country at entry.

I call bullshit.

1. You're from the UK... not some terrorist backwater country.

Recent riots in Britain had few deaths (care to guess why and follow our example?)

2. US collects 10 fingerprints and a digital photograph:

The officer will scan your fingerprints and take your photograph with a digital camera.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_1336.html
http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0525.shtm

There was a pilot program like 5 years ago where you could use an eye scan to speed through security (you had to signup for it and submit a scan before hand)... and that was never a general requirement, and it was discontinued.

Syria has been under trade embargo since October 29th, 1991 as specified in Amendment to ITAR 126.1. The appears to apply to the Arms Export Control and include Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea. The key thing is the 'arms export'. This appears to cover defense articles and defense services - not regular commercial items. Strong encryption is classified as a munition. If the Syrian app store doesn't use strong encryption algorithms for its drm or the sdk, one would presume that developer licenses and app store would be allowed.

It is also noticeable that foreign governments, international organizations (G20 for example) and sports bodies (FIFA for example) see Mexico as a safe enough place to make business with.

It is also noticeable that the US State Department has issued a rather detailed travel warning in Mexico. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_5440.html

Just so I am clear, there is quite a bit of openness about the history and current state of the f-35 program. Where are the Solyndra documents?

That's what ITAR is supposed to address.

Shortly after a close friend *cough, cough* was hired at a company I don't work for *cough cough* The HR manager gave a brief powerpoint summary of ITAR, then went on to say^W tell him with an evil grin, "But we have ways of getting around that." According to those rules, there are 5 countries on our government's shit-list that we never sell to: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. For many others, requests have to be filed and delays of months are not unheard of. It's how the State Department plays favorites.

Besides using third-party "export firms" for the deals, simpler tricks may be played - playing games with serial numbers, for example. The subject of any serious ITAR-compliant transaction also may include Customs opening up the gadget in question, to ensure nobody's smuggling coke or setting them up the bomb.

More ignorance. And history revision. The protectionist law Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act was enacted on 17 June 1930. The State Department itself says "Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade". The Great Depression though started on Black Tuesday, 29 October 1929.

You need to go to economics school. The Chicago school of economics, at the University of Chicago, with more Nobel Prize laureates than any other is a great one. Milton Friedman, one of those Nobel laureates, exposes the Great Depression Myth (almost 10 minute video). In "New Deal or raw deal?" 2 New Deal historians debate whether the New Deal helped during the Great Depression or made it worse. In "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" the political economist Amity Shlaes argues FDR's policies didn't end the depression, that WWII did. Massive government spending, which Obama is advocating, did. In finishing an economics study UCLA economists calculate "FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years".

I provided links to data to government and to economics resources, where are yours? Or do you only have voodoo economics yourself? Of course if you provide any I will research it and see what other economists say.

Falcon

Oh, and I dare you to point out anywhere where i mentioned Ayn Rand previously in regard to this thread. You can't because you're making things up that fits into your own world view and not in reality.