← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Recluse
Thread ID: 9820 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2003-09-16
2003-09-16 16:42 | User Profile
[url=http://in.news.yahoo.com/030916/43/27t6z.html]http://in.news.yahoo.com/030916/43/27t6z.html[/url]
By Ela Dutt, Indo-Asian News Service
New York, Sep 16 (IANS) U.S. President George W. Bush is reportedly against a critical bill now in Congress that would cut down H1-B visas dramatically, affecting skilled IT and other workers from India.
At a private reception attended by eight Indian Americans in Jackson, Mississippi, Bush vehemently expressed his opposition to House Resolution 2688, a bill introduced by Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, according to those attending the meeting.
Immigration attorney Paresh Shah, who was present at the meeting, said he specifically questioned the president regarding his stand on the bill in which Rep. Tancredo has called for terminating the H1-B visa programme altogether.
"Bush spread his hands as wide apart as possible and stated unequivocally that 'Tancredo and I are at opposite ends of the pole. I fully do not support Congressman Tancredo's bill against H1-Bs'," Shah told IANS.
The Tancredo bill has raised hackles both in India and among Indian Americans and other supporters of the community.
"In fact in India and the U.S. there is an understanding that President Bush supports Tancredo's efforts to close the H1-B programme as Tancredo is a fellow Republican and also because the unemployment figures are so high and many people feel that it is a result of H1-Bs occupying American jobs," Shah said.
But the president's statements prove the opposite, he said. Shah is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) that presented its counter proposal on the H1-B visa reduction programme to the president at the gathering.
The private reception was in honour of the Mississippi Republican gubernatorial candidate Haley Barbour and netted $1.2 million for his campaign.
Besides Bush, other noted luminaries at the reception included former senate majority leader Trent Lott of Mississippi as well as Karl Rove, the president's chief campaign advisor. Sampath Shivangi of Mississippi organised the exclusive Indian American delegation.
The California delegation, besides Shah, included Indo-American Friendship Council chairman Krishna Reddy.
Currently, there are some estimated 900,000 H1-B employees in the U.S., 35-45 percent of whom are from India, according to AILA.
"Judging from the president's strong negative reaction to the Tancredo bill, it's apparent that the president understands that the current unemployment situation in the U.S. is not due to H1-B visa holders taking American jobs," Shah contended.
"As soon as I mentioned the visa, he knew what I was talking about, he knew about the Tancredo bill, he knew what it meant. From his immediate grasp of the H1-B issue, and his strong support for continuing the programme, he understands also that these foreign specialty workers are basically a much needed element of our economy," Shah said.
By implication, some observers contend the president is not going to be against business outsourcing as well.
Beginning October 1, the H1-B visas quota will revert back to the 65,000 per annum level it was before it was raised a few years ago to 195,000.
Shah also submitted AILA's proposal on the L-1 visa programme to counteract the various legislation currently pending in Congress to limit its usage.
"The L-1 Visa programme is heavily used by the Indian community. Last year, Indians comprised 24.4 percent of the worldwide L-1 visas issued, making them by far the number one group of users of this visa programme," Shah stated.
2003-09-16 16:46 | User Profile
Jorge does it again! Well, since the anti-immigration vote now nowhere to go, I suppose we will at least see a massive surge in white nationalist activism. We have to put our energies outside of mainstream politics, and in future mainstream politics.
2003-09-16 17:07 | User Profile
Sampath Shivangi of Mississippi
What a f*cking anomaly.
2003-09-16 17:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by xmetalhead@Sep 16 2003, 17:07 * > Sampath Shivangi of Mississippi*
What a fcking anomaly.*
Not with H1-B and all the other programs any more. We are now blesed wih diversity everywhere.
2003-09-16 17:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by iwannabeanarchy@Sep 16 2003, 16:46 * Jorge does it again! Well, since the anti-immigration vote now nowhere to go, I suppose we will at least see a massive surge in white nationalist activism. We have to put our energies outside of mainstream politics, and in future mainstream politics.*
Well Bush really hasn't done or become anything he hasn't long done or been before. I don't expect any repercussions from this really, for the same reason he never got any repercussions before. He is very sneaky with the way he tries to fit in his pro-immigration agenda. His recent attempt to start sneaking open-border provisions in trade agreements is a perfect example.
He knows it is unpopular therefore in public he is rather vague about his support for open border tech immigration. Note this was at a private reception.
2003-09-16 17:39 | User Profile
I totally disagree. There is mounting anti-immigration feeling, particularly about these 'tech visas,' and this GOP move against immigration control is an ongoing issue. Everyone knows that Bush is pro-immigration, and, with statements like this--public or private--he is just losing options to get out of that mess. Yeah, it's more of the same from Bush--but's that's the point.
Moreover, it's certainly not more of the old GOP racial feelings associated with Goldwater--feelings that still remain strong among a significant, overly loyal segment of the part.
Sharpton complains that the Democrats take blacks for granted. The GOP is doing the same when it comes to whites. Perhaps some time in the wilderness will get the GOP leadership to wise up. In any case, the party is going to outlive Jorge and his open-borders madness.
2003-09-16 17:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by iwannabeanarchy@Sep 16 2003, 17:39 * *I totally disagree.ÃÂ There is mounting anti-immigration feeling, particularly about these 'tech visas,' and this GOP move against immigration control is an ongoing issue.ÃÂ Everyone knows that Bush is pro-immigration, and, with statements like this--public or private--he is just losing options to get out of that mess.ÃÂ Yeah, it's more of the same from Bush--but's that's the point.....ÃÂ
Sharpton complains that the Democrats take blacks for granted.ÃÂ The GOP is doing the same when it comes to whites.ÃÂ Perhaps some time in the wilderness will get the GOP leadership to wise up.ÃÂ In any case, the party is going to outlive Jorge and his open-borders madness.**
Well WN's have been waiting for a spontaneous eruption of anger for as long as I can remember. Who knows for sure, but it is my opinion, supported by others, that this eruption is going to require more than just sitting around and waiting for the revolution. It requires organization and strategy, and specifics, something nationalists always seem to come up very short on.
Ditto as for waiting for the GOP leadership to "see the light".
2003-09-16 17:59 | User Profile
Ok, yeah, no large-scale 'eruptions,' I am holding out for a 'surge,' and the GOP not really seeing the light for another five years to a decade (maybe a bit less).
Constant activism will of course be necessary, particularly with the young people.
2003-09-16 17:59 | User Profile
Bush has no immigration policy but, "come one, come all, non-whites only. GW's unspoken challenge is "What are you going to do about it? Little people".
2003-09-16 18:10 | User Profile
Well, not vote for him, for a start. Beyond that, talk him down every chance I get (which are many).
2003-09-18 00:03 | User Profile
Can anyone post Ann COulter's rant on the 'Treason Lobby' again?
[freeper mode] Ita all the damn Demicrats, swamping our country with immigrants![/freeper mode]
2003-09-18 01:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It requires organization and strategy, and specifics, something nationalists always seem to come up very short on.[/QUOTE] But that's not really the problem. The problem is a lack of money. Money would solve all those problems.
2003-09-18 03:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE]"Bush spread his hands as wide apart as possible and stated unequivocally that 'Tancredo and I are at opposite ends of the pole. I fully do not support Congressman Tancredo's bill against H1-Bs'," Shah told IANS.[/QUOTE]
"Our" punk president thinks that way, but alot of us don't. Some of us are so damn mad at him and the g 'n g republicans (greedy and gutless) that come next year he stands a fine chance to lose. I'm at the point where I'd vote for an avowled socialist if that person would do two things that I could count on. Deal with the immigration problem and get the hell out of the Middle East and dealing with corrupt Israel.
Xmetal,
You took the words right out of my mouth with that comment. It is sickening.
2003-09-18 07:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE]*Originally posted by Sertorius * [B I'm at the point where I'd vote for an avowled socialist if that person would do two things that I could count on. Deal with the immigration problem and get the hell out of the Middle East and dealing with corrupt Israel. [/B][/QUOTE] I'm seriously considerig that as a last resort tactic. It wouldn't be much different than attacking infrastructure in a guerilla action, but it'd be legal warfare, and you might get one or two decent policy changes in the process. Bush has done nothing but bow down to Israel.
2003-09-18 07:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE]*Originally posted by mwdallas * [B]But that's not really the problem. The problem is a lack of money. Money would solve all those problems. [/B][/QUOTE] True - there are many things partially attributable to lack of resources, such as the things above. Training schools etc. could address a lot of these problems of organization and strategy.
Money however is a two-edged sword. Think how many good WN organizations, like the IHR/Liberty Lobby thing, that have imploded over money battles.
Also realize of course that money attracts ADL/SPLC lawyers like shit does flies. The reality is we'll probably never have a great deal much money, and if it shows up, one often must be suspicious of it.
For money to not corrupt a movement, it must already have a strong internal sense of self-identity, who it is and where it's going, in the first place, and have some governing structure there to handle the money. That's as an absolute starting point.
2003-09-18 17:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE]*Originally posted by wintermute * I would certainly appreciate your commentary on the very specific action items I gave on the "future of OD" thread.
They were:
*encouraging lurkers to post
*mass mailings of MacDonald's Immigration Chapter to White residents of Aztlan States
*collating our Neo-Con data into a series of talking points, which may or may not be linked to the creation of a card deck, as is occasionally discussed in WN circles
*working with/ organizing/ supporting "Kill Your Television" movements Anti-Circumcision drives Humane Slaughter initiatives
From the deafening silence I recieved on that thread, I actually thought I had given offense.
No, you didn't give offense. It was just that when you rewrote this it made it a lot easier to read. Maybe that's part of the lesson. We do have a lot of boards today with a huge number of posts- when you have something really important to say you need to find a way to simplify it and make it stand out.
I'll have to get back to these points, which deserve a comment. Until then, lets touch on your remaining points.
Now that I again see a request for specific plans of action, I have reprinted the ones I gave two days ago, to which I would add:
after encouraging lurkers to post more often, we must hash out promotional schemes for luring more high quality posters here. This will require link exchanges and 'away teams' to ideologically adjacent online boards. Frightening as it is for me to say, we will need to moniter* boards like FR constantly, to locate and recruit likely candidates.
*towards this end, more of the data we've compiled here will have to assembled into some usable form. I recommend two or three persons per sub-forum, detailing activity and trends year by year (say, the situation in Britian), plus overviews. Isolated data points impress nobody. Trends made up of overwhelming numbers of such incidents are very impressive.
*avoiding the temptation to spam other boards, we should rather identify likely persons and target them. They can, in turn, become the 'watchers' for boards that they've left, IDing new candidates.
*we should constantly be making the attempt to turn or convert people both online and in real life. Therefore, we have a common interest in a) assembling usable data (not just recommending MacDonald) b)exchanging information on persuasive techniques, common objections, questions, etc. and c)egging each other on to action.
*converting ideological adjacents like large Immigration groups is a high priority. They have infrastructure and cash. We should be covert to whatever degree necessary, following the VDARE example. An intact but secretive major Immigration group which actually resisted Jewish power covertly without being explicit about it would be a great prize indeed.
centralizing and streamlining WN 'startups'. A million websites with four regular readers each is not as good as two or three mega websites, representing real divisions in WN. Two or three FreeRepublic type operations, complete with local action groups, who are comitted to a sane and effective propogation of ideas* would be very powerful. OD, as I've often argued, should take the high road, intellectually and morally. Information, and not violence, is our means and objective. Continuing the attempt to marginalize KKK, skins, and Nazis (not Revisionists) should be our goal. Outreach along the lines of EAIF is also good.
*without wishing for total societal collapse, we can affirm the worse is better scenario in a limited way by doing what we can to destroy the Republican Party. Vote Democrat (unless you live in Ron Paul's district), mingle with Republicans, and carry as many dirty secrets as you can from one side to the other. Worse may not always be better, but for the short term, 'diversity is our strength'.
Wintermute [/B][/QUOTE]
You make some interesting points here. Some of them are excellent, most of them are very good things to do, and all of them I think are things we have at least talked about often on this board, without necessarily being in agreement (the idea about supporting the Democratic Party and candidates such as Bustamante comes to mind here).
I would like to comment individually on these suggestions, and how best to accomplish them. But I think if you review the items you have give us, that "we" are supposed to do, you will see a very basic question is arising who is this "we" and how are "we" going to accomplish these things?
You have thrown out a lot of things, and if you look at it again, you might realize the magnitude involved in accomplishing all of these action items.
Some of these things involve the OD board specifically. With regard to these things, I can say that although good to do, I and others have been throwing out similar suggestions for working other boards, without a great deal of response. Of course I'm not one to criticize, I hardly have time to do hardly any of these things either. Like most of you just surfing and keeping up with this board takes up a high enough proportion of my time I tend to be reluctant to really jump off into additional activities. Otherwise I might miss more of your great posts. (Not joking, this one is really very good, and really all of them now are very thought provoking).
Other of these things I am not sure who they are directed to specifically, I think however they are in general directed at the WN movement at large. Which really does bring up the question, who does represent the WN movement at large? That is one of the things obviously that have to be addressed, because even these seemingly small things you have assigned the WN movement require a certain amount of organization.
Until recently, one could have referred to the National Alliance I suppose as the preeminent WN organization, although its ideology excludes a great many potential sympathizers, such as religious believers (with the exception a least presently of certain pagan groups).
Now however even the NA is in disarray, and the putative nationalist movement is realy left without hardly a single organization with the resources and power to do anything, that I see at least. Maybe for the broader paleo-tinged WN movement the CoCC comes to mind, but how much of an organization is that really, compared to the tasks you point out rightly which need to be done, and which a good WN organization would be thinking of doing?
That's why I'll repeat my assertion that these things
It requires organization and strategy, and specifics, something nationalists always seem to come up very short on.
Just step back and take a lok at some of the things you have suggested as part of a broad WN strategy. Consider what I would say my assertion that such things would represent a fair proportion of the workload of an organization such as the SPLC or ADL, albeit directed in a contrary fashion. The ADL after all has spent decades popularizing and distributing diversity advocating literature, starting with The Authoritarian Personality.
Look at the size of the ADL and SPLC. They are huge organizations, with annual direct budgets I think of at least tens of millions of dollars, and hundreds of full time employees. (Some of which we meet on our internt forums, aka "Veronica" and "Daisy11").
Compare this with our resources. This board for starters probably is limited to at least 20 really active contributers at any one time.
I say these thing are good, but that MWDallas in a sense is right - a large amount of the undeniable problem we havewith organization and strategy is resources.
2003-09-18 18:30 | User Profile
after encouraging lurkers to post more often, we must hash out promotional schemes for luring more high quality posters here. This will require link exchanges and 'away teams' to ideologically adjacent online boards. Frightening as it is for me to say, we will need to moniter boards like FR constantly*, to locate and recruit likely candidates.
Anyway, I contacted the fellow who wrote the following letter to the editor and invited him to join OD. I received a thoughtful, though noncommittal, reply. He told me that he had gotten more positive than negative replies regarding his letter (though of course none were published by the local daily, Pravda on the Colorado, i.e. The Austin American Statesman), and the negatives were mostly of the knee-jerk "you're a racist anti-Semite" variety. He further said (and I agree) that most folks, when given a chance to think for themselves, will draw the right conclusions. I'm glad that OD is here to provide a venue for people to begin thinking for themselves free of the Propasphere. If Mr. Ikhrais is correct, it would seem that the audience receptive to the central message of OD is there, now all we need to do is make those same people aware of it.
Lieberman's allegiance
Re: Sept. 10 news brief, "Democratic rivals face off":
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman criticized former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean for advocating a balanced U.S. policy in the Middle East. Lieberman showed that he and the rest of the Israeli amen corner in the United States would rather see many more innocent people die than to tell Israel that some of its policies are wrong.
Lieberman has shown beyond doubt that his allegiance belongs in Tel Aviv and not in Washington. He should therefore be running for Israel's premiership, not U.S. president.
RIZK IKHRAIS
Bastrop (TX)
[email]ikhrais@ev1.net[/email]
[url]http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/editorial_f3262c24951bb0960064.html[/url]
2003-09-19 23:05 | User Profile
[SIZE=7][B]Treason![/B][/SIZE]