|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Susie
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 390
Location: PRC
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 am Post subject: Visa row with US escalates |
 |
|
www.scmp.com
Wednesday, March 31, 2004 Last updated: Mar 31 at 11:19 AM
The mainland has stopped offering visas on arrival for US passport holders at entry points such as Shenzhen in an escalation of a diplomatic row over fingerprinting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Philolinguist
Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 370
Location: In the land of oppressed people who don't know it...and/or don't care.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That's a registered site. Can you cut and paste some highlights from the article for us? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mourningclam
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Posts: 20
Location: sunny korea, again
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is from the BBC.
China hits back in US visa row
China has vowed to retaliate over a US move to fingerprint Chinese citizens seeking non-immigrant visas by imposing its own series of tightened rules for US citizens visiting China.
US holders of diplomatic passports will have to apply for ordinary visas, and pay visa fees, when wishing to visit China in a private capacity, China's foreign ministry said on its website.
Staff at Chinese consular offices in the US will also ask some US visa applicants to appear for personal interviews, the website said.
The ministry also announced an end to visa-on-arrival facilities for US citizens, which has previously been provided at selected points of entry, such as the city of Shenzhen north of Hong Kong.
The Chinese move came after the United States turned down a Chinese request to review its fingerprinting policies and argued electronic fingerprinting was a global requirement for applicants of US visas.
From the newsroom of the BBC World Service
I want to try and make it to China for work in a few months, hopeffuly this doesnt affect anything. You can always rely on the current residents of the White House to piss off the international community. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philolinguist
Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 370
Location: In the land of oppressed people who don't know it...and/or don't care.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Any sovereign nation has the absolute right to say who does or does not come into its country and can (and should in some cases) enact whatever measures it deems fit to ensure its security.
In the present case, the US is dealing with very real terrorist threats and in my mind is taking appropriate security measures. China on the other hand is just being immature, as is customary. But that's okay. Any country that wants to fingerprint me or take my picture is certainly within its rights and I have no problem with submitting to such procedures. If I have nothing to hide, why should I object?
Yes, the Bush administration has pissed off the international community on numerous counts, but I don't have much of a problem with that either. Contrary to popular belief, the US--during this administration and prior to it--has rarely based its foreign policy on which way the international wind is blowing on a particular day.
Having been in Asia for two years, I get to hear America bashing taken to an art form. When someone deigns to bless me with their negative opinion of America or American policy, I just smile politely and say, "You aren't required to like America. You see, I don't give a *bleep* whether you like the US or not." And honestly, I don't.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Great Wall of Whiner
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Posts: 4946
Location: Blabbing
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philolinguist wrote: |
| Any sovereign nation has the absolute right to say who does or does not come into its country and can (and should in some cases) enact whatever measures it deems fit to ensure its security. |
I agree. But don't forget China is also a sovereign nation and can up the ante too if it pleases them.
| Quote: |
| In the present case, the US is dealing with very real terrorist threats and in my mind is taking appropriate security measures. |
I don't recall any Chinese people being accused or involved in 9/11.
| Quote: |
| Contrary to popular belief, the US--during this administration and prior to it--has rarely based its foreign policy on which way the international wind is blowing on a particular day. |
I agree with this also. It seems the U.S. doesn't care about other nations. So much for global democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lagerlout2006
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 985
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Technically there never was a "visa on arrival." One needs a visa before arriving...And if Uncle Sam is going to get cranky about arrivals Americans can expect the same in return...Only fair as in Korea where 0 Canadians get 6 months and everyone else gets 3...Are you complaining it shouldn't be recipicol???
I am starting to wonder about the sanity of people in EFL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philolinguist
Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 370
Location: In the land of oppressed people who don't know it...and/or don't care.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| As I stated previously, I have no problem with any nation imposing whatever entry regulations they see fit. It's their right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Joined: 19 Jan 2003
Posts: 9138
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
The visa-on-arrival scheme is in place in locations such as SHENZHEN - when you arrive from Hong Kong, - as well as t some airports (Peking, Shanghai, and, I believe, Tianjin).
The purpose of visa-on-arrival is to facilitate business trips. It's not necessarily meant for tourists. If you get a Shenzhen visa, you are not allowed to travel farther north than the boundary separating Shenzhen from Dongguan.
I don't think the US is very tactful in its dealings with other nations, but in this case, I am siding with them.
The Chinese, on the other hand, take any pretext for retribution and publich posturing; previously the Brits were their bogeyman (and, no doubt, still are); if one of them arrives at the Shenzhen immigration counter without a visa, he will be fined RMB 500 and sent back to the HK side.
This is another illustration of Chinese vindictiveness. They are shooting themselves in the foot, but they don't care about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nolefan
Joined: 14 Jan 2004
Posts: 1458
Location: on the run
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:27 am Post subject: nope |
|
|
I beg to differ with most of you!
the Us has also imposed mandatory visas for people in Transit. Let's say you want to fly to somewhere in mexico or Canada or even Guatemala and you have a connecting flight within a US airport, you need to go wait in line for a bloody visa that will cost you roughly 40 or 50 USD!!!!
I agree that with the fact that any country should regulate it's space whichever way it sees fit...but there is something to be said about stupidity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philolinguist
Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 370
Location: In the land of oppressed people who don't know it...and/or don't care.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "Stupidity" is NOT taking the precautions necessary to protect your citizens. Given the less than adequate border control or screening of some of our allies, a terrorist could with effort fly in from a friendly country, as did some of the 9/11 hijackers--whether it's a connecting international flight or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SueH
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 1022
Location: Northern Italy
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Stupidity" is the mechanism by which you ensure the welfare and safety of your citizens. How about a bit more security in the transit area?
The current policy is just reactive and penalises the innocent. Watch the tourism figures for the US slide. I've always fancied skiing some Utah powder but these days, given the visa costs and hassle I'd probably make it Lake Louise or Fernie.
Traditionally the security over here has always been tighter as a result of historical experience, whether ETA, Brigate Rosse, Bader Meinhof or the IRA, the latter receiving considerable assistance from US money.
Anyway,you'd probably achieve more safety and welfare of the citizenry by more effective gun control laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 8:03 pm Post subject: Duh - maybe |
|
|
Speaking of security, this question never fails to amuse me:
"Has anyone put anything into your luggage without your knowledge?"
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chegs
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Having been in Asia for two years, I get to hear America bashing taken to an art form. When someone deigns to bless me with their negative opinion of America or American policy, I just smile politely and say, "You aren't required to like America. You see, I don't give a *bleep* whether you like the US or not." And honestly, I don't."
That typifies the Amero-centric view espoused by so many Americans. America is the most powerful military machine in the world, but forgive me for saying so, it hasn't got a clue what terrorism is and the majority of it was started by the CIA anyway! (who funded Saddam/The Contras/Bin Laden etc etc?)
My hometown has been the target of three huge IRA bombs in recent years, entailing the rebuilding of a huge section of the city. But I guess that doesn't matter because no Americans were killed!
As long as America's crazy gun laws exist, it will continue to have six times as many deaths as the WTC each year needlessly. As a country with such awesome power it should also wield it with responsibility. However the aggressive foreign policy, the continued funding of illegal militia in many S. American, Middle Eastern and African nations to keep them unstable, and the unbridled slaughter of your own people by each other is why the world currently views the US with suspicion.
Can you blame them?
Good for China for "daring" to cock a snook! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
struelle
Joined: 16 May 2003
Posts: 2372
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As I stated previously, I have no problem with any nation imposing whatever entry regulations they see fit. It's their right. |
That's fine, but a nation's sovereignty doesn't exist in a vacuum. In other words, if the US takes measures to restrict visas, then other countries will naturally follow.
How does that saying go? The measure you use will also be used against you.
When visa fees were recently hiked against citizens visiting the US, those same countries retaliated, including China, by hiking fees against US citizens. Brazil recently put fingerprinting in place too, but not for all visitors.
This reminds me a lot of trade spats, the principle is the same. Country X raises tarriffs on some imported product that violates WTO rules, country Y complains, but later imposes their own tarriffs to retaliate.
Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philolinguist
Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 370
Location: In the land of oppressed people who don't know it...and/or don't care.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That typifies the Amero-centric view espoused by so many Americans. America is the most powerful military machine in the world, but forgive me for saying so, it hasn't got a clue what terrorism is and the majority of it was started by the CIA anyway! (who funded Saddam/The Contras/Bin Laden etc etc?) |
And the above quote typifies the globalist, new-world-order centric view espoused by so many UN apologists, who--if they had their way--wouldn't have the right to even declare such an opinion. Your postulation in the second part of the above quote is that if one nation hasn't experienced terrorism to the degree that another nation has, they of necessity cannot understand it. That's tantamount to saying that since no one in my family has been murdered I cannot "have a clue" regarding murder's heinous and devastating consequences.
Granted, the US hasn't experienced terrorism on a first-hand scale the way England, Israel and other nations have; but to say that that fact somehow makes the US clueless as to its effects or how to deal with it is inane at best.
Regarding the last part of your quote, yes it's true that the US supported the rogues gallery of figures that you mentioned. In the case of Saddam, it was to counter the revolutionary fervor of the Iranians who had designs on controlling not only their own oil, but that of Iraq as well, under the guise of spreading their tyrannical, authoritarian, human rights violating revolution to the rest of the Middle East after the overthrow of the Shah. In the case of the Contras, to contain another authoritarian dictatorship, in this case Communist, from sweeping through Central America. And for the villain of the day Bin Laden, to counteract the spread of Russian authoritarianism--again Communist--to Afghanistan. Does foreign diplomacy often necessitate dealing with villains in order to contain a more immediate threat to world self-determination? Yeah, it does.
Ultimately, a powerful nation just has to deal with the most immediate, urgent threat, try to predict the long term consequences, and just roll the dice. Sometimes it works out well, as it did when we entered World War 2, defeating Japan and Germany, rebuilding their countries, helping them to become prosperous free countries; and sometimes it doesn't work out, as at the conclusion of the same war, Soviet Communism became a tyrannical authoritarian force, repressing the people under its sphere of influence for the next forty years.
| Quote: |
| My hometown has been the target of three huge IRA bombs in recent years, entailing the rebuilding of a huge section of the city. But I guess that doesn't matter because no Americans were killed! |
You have my sympathy...really. That aside, to say that Americans don't care about what is happening and has happened in the British Isles shows an amazing disregard for the facts. Namely, that the US repeatedly has sat down at the negotiating table with England and Irish nationalist parties in a concerted attempt to broker a deal that's amenable to both sides. Those efforts are always ongoing, even though the issue doesn't affect us directly.
| Quote: |
| As long as America's crazy gun laws exist, it will continue to have six times as many deaths as the WTC each year needlessly. As a country with such awesome power it should also wield it with responsibility. |
America's "crazy gun laws"--also known as the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, as contained in our Bill of Rights--was implemented so that an armed citizenry could react forcibly if necessary to unconstitional tyranny by the government. You see, in America at least, the government should answer to the people from whom it derives its rights. Do unsavory individuals take advantage of the freedoms guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution? Yes, every minute of every day. Is that the price one must pay to live in a free society? Yes. A minority will always attempt to abuse their freedoms; such is human nature. Is the US government still answerable to its citizens? Yes! And defenders of the 2nd Amendment intend to keep it so.
Ultimately, you can please all people sometimes, some people all the time, but not all the people all the time. The US is like the quarterback on an American football team. If the play works, the quarterback gets the praise whether he was integral to it or not. Likewise if the play is a bust, he gets blamed whether he failed or not.
Another sports analogy: America is the point guard on the basketball team, not the team itself. The rest of the team looks to the point guard for guidance. He or she is very high profile. Sometimes the point guard may be a pain in the ass and a bit pushy. Sometimes he throws the ball out of bounds; but ultimately he is working for the good of the team (one assumes, opinions may vary). You may not like the point guard, maybe can't stand him or her; but he or she is the engine that drives the team. Democracy is the team. Some players take an active role in making the team and point guard better, some bitch and moan, some sit the bench. Some bench sitters are actually good enough to play, but they prefer for one reason or another to relax in the security of the sidelines--maybe they don't like the direction of the team, maybe they're embarrassed to fail. Other bench sitters want to be in the game and help the team win, but they might not be tall enough or skilled enough. Some players may actually want to transfer to another team...and that's okay. But the play begins with the point guard. He gets the most praise or the most blame, as the case may be.
In all honesty, I believe my country is trying to do the right thing. Are our methods or outcomes always what we want them to be? No. I do believe, however, that the overriding principle behind our actions are: 1. our national security first; and 2. self-determination for everyone else on the planet.
| Quote: |
| Good for China for "daring" to *beep* a snook! |
As I said in several posts previous to this one, China has every right to impose whatever regulations it wishes for entry to its borders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
