New immigration procedures

"Sjoerd" wrote in message
...

"Martin Euredjian" schreef in bericht
y.com...
"PTRAVEL" wrote:
We have, apparently, subsidized entire
rail systems in Europe. Just incredible.

Don't believe everything you read.

Apparently not.

Please watch your attributions. I didn't write what you've attributed to
me.


Sjoerd

"Sjoerd" wrote:

Don't believe everything you read.

Well, in this case it happens to be true. I can't get into the details
here. Go to the CNN website and look for "Lou Dobbs" I'm pretty sure they
have the information there.

As I understand it, the way this rail system giveaway works is that the US
is giving companies huge tax benefits for doing some of these projects.

Here's a link to the show's transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/27/ldt.00.html

Search the text for "American Giveaway" without quotes.

Here's a quote from the transcript:

"SCHIAVONE: Some of the most fertile grounds for these deals are in Europe,
with big corporations taking U.S. tax breaks on everything from the Paris
subway to the Berlin subway to railroad tracks, power plants and town halls.
SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: You're finding American taxpayers paying
for the restructuring and refurbishing of very important infrastructure for
cities in Europe. It just doesn't seem right that the American taxpayers
would be picking up that bill. "


I'll leave it up to you to show me that this isn't true. I believe it.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin Euredjian

To send private email:

where
"0_0_0_0_" = "martineu"

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:44:37 -0500 Inserted Finger
wrote:

:PTRAVEL wrote:
: Whether they are appropriate or not (and I'm not venturing an opinion one
: way or another) is a matter between U.S. citizens and their government.

:Not when the USA breaks with international agreements.

What international agreement?

: For instance, instead
:of refusing entry (the accepted procedure which results in the person

Oh, is it merely what you deem as "accepted procedure"?

Backing down on your assertion of an international agreement?

:remaining airside and sent on the next flight back to their point of origin),
:allowing the person to enter, immediatly arresting the person, keeping them in
:a US jail for a few days and then sending them to a 3rd country without
:allowing the person to make a phone call, without advising the country on the
:person's passport etc. The fact that they technically allow the person to
:enter the USA is then no longer an immigration issue, it is a legal and human
:rights issue.

So you assert.

:Deportation procedures require that the person have at least a deportation
:hearing, that he be given the chance to contact his embassy etc etc. In many
:cases, the USA has broken those agreements. As a matter of fact, friends who
:recently got a USA visa told me thay had to sign a waiver to any deportation procedures.

What agreements?

:Yes, the USA has the right to refuse entry to anyone and everyone, but when it
:does so, it should act according to international agreed procedures.

When did the USA agree to those procedures?

:Sending a grand mother traveling from europe to USA to visit a daughter to a
:jail upon landing in the USA is way out of bounds. Sending her back with a
:simple "sorry mam, we can't let you enter the USA, we're sending you home on
:next available flight" would have been the right thing to do instead of
:slapping some handcuff on the poor old lady.

Why?

Because you say so?

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

PTRAVEL writes
I've got to say, I find the responses of a number of posters to this rather
peculiar. U.S. immigration procedures are matters internal to the U.S.
Whether they are appropriate or not (and I'm not venturing an opinion one
way or another) is a matter between U.S. citizens and their government.

Immigration procedures are the interface between a country and the rest
of the world. They are not just internal matters. Whether the procedures
are in place is a matter between US citizens and their government.
Whether the procedures are appropriate is a legitimate topic for, well,
just about everyone. Obviously the US isn't obliged to listen to the
comments, but would nevertheless be well advised to do so.

I really can't think of any countries in the world whose customs, practices
and laws I find so offensive that I wouldn't, nonetheless, be interested in
visiting them and, while there, I'd cheerfully comply with whatever
restrictions and requirements were placed on me. Of course, if there were
such a country, I simply wouldn't go.

Up to a point I'd go along with this. For example, I have little
sympathy for those jailed for drinking alcohol in Saudi.

But when I don't like the human rights record of a country, I reserve
the right to work to bring about change. I don't believe that
fundamental human rights are trumped by national boundaries or by local
culture.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

PTRAVEL wrote:
I've got to say, I find the responses of a number of posters to this rather
peculiar. U.S. immigration procedures are matters internal to the U.S.
Whether they are appropriate or not (and I'm not venturing an opinion one
way or another) is a matter between U.S. citizens and their government.

All true. But people are still entitled to their opinions (not that I think
we've had a lot of erudite and constructive discussion in this thread).

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Martin Euredjian wrote:
We have, apparently, subsidized entire rail systems in Europe. Just
incredible.

I don't know anything about that. But keep in mind that foreign investment
money keeps us solvent.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Ivanna Getlaid wrote:
mrtravel wrote:
And what does the Red Cross get for helping these people?? They get
attacked..

Because the USA government is desperate to find any justification for
their illegal invasion, and because the USA is so reluctant to hand over
power to the UN which has experience in rebuilding countries, I wouldn't
be surprised at all if the bombs weren't in fact comissioned by the USA.

Oh please.

The bombs are set off by people, children in adults' bodies really, who
desperately want to have some impact on a world that's become completely
outside their control. They started by attacking military and government
targets but these are now too well protected, so they've moved on to killing
doctors and Muslim children. Clearly only the sickest of the sick are able
to muster up the motivation to do this.

The silver lining is that suicide bombers are rarely repeat offenders. If
things start to get straightened out in Iraq they'll run out of them
relatively quickly.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:11:04 +0000 Simon Elliott
wrote:

:PTRAVEL writes

:I've got to say, I find the responses of a number of posters to this rather
:peculiar. U.S. immigration procedures are matters internal to the U.S.
:Whether they are appropriate or not (and I'm not venturing an opinion one
:way or another) is a matter between U.S. citizens and their government.

:Immigration procedures are the interface between a country and the rest
:of the world. They are not just internal matters.

Nope.

The foreigner has the choice to not attempt entry.

Should they attempt entry, they are subject to the "internal matters".

: Whether the procedures
:are in place is a matter between US citizens and their government.

The procedures are, as well.

:Whether the procedures are appropriate is a legitimate topic for, well,
:just about everyone. Obviously the US isn't obliged to listen to the
:comments, but would nevertheless be well advised to do so.

Why?

What are you gonna do about it?

:I really can't think of any countries in the world whose customs, practices
:and laws I find so offensive that I wouldn't, nonetheless, be interested in
:visiting them and, while there, I'd cheerfully comply with whatever
:restrictions and requirements were placed on me. Of course, if there were
:such a country, I simply wouldn't go.

:Up to a point I'd go along with this. For example, I have little
:sympathy for those jailed for drinking alcohol in Saudi.

What if they are whipped?

:But when I don't like the human rights record of a country, I reserve
:the right to work to bring about change. I don't believe that
:fundamental human rights are trumped by national boundaries or by local
:culture.

Feel free to fight windmills.

But be aware that the argument "because YOU don't like it" tends to affect
your family alone, if that.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Binyamin Dissen writes
:Immigration procedures are the interface between a country and the rest
:of the world. They are not just internal matters.

Nope.

The foreigner has the choice to not attempt entry.

Therefore they are not internal matters. They will affect the decision
of someone outside the US, which will in turn either beneficially or
adversely affect the US.

Should they attempt entry, they are subject to the "internal matters".

Certainly.

:are in place is a matter between US citizens and their government.

The procedures are, as well.

Certainly.

:Whether the procedures are appropriate is a legitimate topic for, well,
:just about everyone. Obviously the US isn't obliged to listen to the
:comments, but would nevertheless be well advised to do so.

Why?

What are you gonna do about it?

I'm going to do absolutely nothing about it. Restrictive and abusive
immigration procedures which harm the US are not my problem. The US is
big enough to take care of itself without any help from me.

:I really can't think of any countries in the world whose customs, practices
:and laws I find so offensive that I wouldn't, nonetheless, be interested in
:visiting them and, while there, I'd cheerfully comply with whatever
:restrictions and requirements were placed on me. Of course, if there were
:such a country, I simply wouldn't go.

:Up to a point I'd go along with this. For example, I have little
:sympathy for those jailed for drinking alcohol in Saudi.

What if they are whipped?

I don't agree with this practice, but those caught drinking alcohol knew
the risks.

:But when I don't like the human rights record of a country, I reserve
:the right to work to bring about change. I don't believe that
:fundamental human rights are trumped by national boundaries or by local
:culture.

Feel free to fight windmills.

But be aware that the argument "because YOU don't like it" tends to affect
your family alone, if that.

That's always a possibility. But those windmills aren't usually going to
fall unless a lot of people agree to take them on. And I admit that the
winds of change usually have to be blowing in the right direction.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Martin Euredjian wrote:

As I understand it, the way this rail system giveaway works is that the US
is giving companies huge tax benefits for doing some of these projects.

Not just rail systems, all sorts of infrastructure are 'sold and leased
back'.

But these 'buyers' are US companies that take advantage of US tax laws.
These aren't subsidies, just giant loopholes in the US tax law. It's not
up to the Europeans to fix those loopholes.

M