Fischkoepfin

Don't really have the time to help you out with a story about the changes, but I have some practical advise.

Focus on those areas of immigration policy that have been hit the hardest, namely non-immigrant students (F1 AND J1). Because the 9/11-highjackers all had student visas, reorganizing the the student visa system was a top priority after 9/11. The introduction of SEVIS changed the way international students can be tracked in the US. Also changes in application procedures.

For question 1: Our student newspaper had stories about the changes in immigration policy after 9/11 by regularly reporting on students who were subject to new regulations. There are tons of stories out there. Particularly students of engineering, computer science, and nature sciences will have had changed experiences. Consider doing a survey on campus among the international students at your school or if there aren't any, get in touch with the international student office at the next major university in your area.

For question 2: Check into immigrants from China. Of all the stories I've heard it seems that after 9/11 Chinese immigrants are also subject to tougher scrutiny. No idea why that is, but that's what I've read about most. However, there have been policy changes also affecting so-called Western countries.

Good luck!

When did the federal government begin funding education and for what reasons?

1946

The Cabinet-level Department of Health, Education and Welfare was created under President Eisenhower, officially coming into existence April 11, 1953. In 1979, the Department of Education Organization Act was signed into law, providing for a separate Department of Education. HEW became the Department of Health and Human Services, officially arriving on May 4, 1980.

http://www.hhs.gov/about/hhshist.html

Thanks. But I do not believe that the education in the US was better or even comparable before this date. College enrollment was way down and the number of people finishing high school was also significantly lower.

Today, federal funding for education at least allows to support schooling in poor areas. Primary and secondary education is still mainly funded by counties and only partially by the states. Because in many places funding is tied to property taxes, many areas with less well-off people have really bad schools, high drop-out rates, and low college enrollment rates. Yet, to keep the schools running and to help children in poor neighborhoods succeed, the federal government support programs to help teacher recruitment and educational programs.

So, ever since the federal government got involved in education, Americans have been better educated. Why would you want to change that?

When did the federal government begin funding education and for what reasons?

Right. The country's increasingly in debt and defense spending is up. Guess it's time to make the tax cuts permanent...

ahh yes.. taking money out of the education budget... and just a few days ago he said on tv he was gonna propose new education plans on math and science.. with what?? good will? where's the dinero for those programs..

why have education if you can buy weapons.. America, gun guts and God..

There should be no U.S. Department of Education. Education is a state and local govenment function. People in the U.S. were being educated just fine before the Federal government stuck their nose in things.

When was that?

The same things has happened to me before and there's nothing you can do. I once wanted to go into a bar in Philadelphia with a bunch of friends and only had my passport with me. My friends got in; I didn't. Why? They only accept PA-state IDs, and my passport was most likely fake anyway. I was so mad that night because the PA-ID at the time was a joke and half of the ones they had seen from my friends were fake, whereas my passport had about 50 different security protections, including ID-card in plastic and holograms, etc.

Where I live now, they have a similar law, only that bars and other non-minor places only and exclusively accept Indiana Driver's Licenses. I've refused entrance with a Georgia license, and I've also been asked for additional identification (Phote-ID) in addition to my Georgia license other than my passport (which the bouncer also viewed as a fake). The only solution was to get the required ID, and now it's no problem whatsoever (they stopped carding me the moment I had my IN-DL).

I wish you the best of luck with getting a state-ID asap. Bars, casinos, and so on seem to be able to make their own rules about IDs, and it is in their disgression to change those rules on the spot. The less known the form of ID you present, the more likely it is that they will not admit you.

Thanks for posting the article. That's a really interesting view, and I do think there's some truth to the idea that if you claim Muslims don't have humor, you basically make them less human which then again allows you to justify war against them as a group.

It also reminds me of the fact that people used to think that Germans lack humor or can't understand it, a perception stemming from WW2. Remember the German attempt at the "Deadly Joke" in Monty Python's Flying Circus?

It's also interesting that the writer associates humor with art and then goes on to claim that there is no (great) art in the Muslim world. This statement echoes the claim that there is no humor; art is another marker of humaness. And while I can't speak to the existence of humor in the Muslim world although I'm sure it exists, I do know that there is a lot of art in the Muslim world even though it might not be "great." But there are awesome movies coming out of the Muslim world, novels that immediately are considered world literature, and awesome buildings that are designed and realized by Muslim architects. And then there's pop music, rap, and rock by Muslim musicians which is also art.

The article clearly points at gaps in our perception of the Muslim world; there's so much we don't know and there's so much we don't want to know. It's much easier to assume that the stereotypical Muslim has no sense of humor, no interest in art, and instead only cares about jihad, the prophet, and Allah. And I'm certain if we read a similar article from some Muslim country in which an American or European would try to explain that Americans/ Europeans actually do have humor if not art, we would shake our heads and probably use our sense of humor by laughing about it...

It certainly IS true. The law in question states that any public questioning/debate of the findings of the Nuremberg trials is considered "Holocaust denial" and thus a prosecutable hate crime.

Now, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946 found that "the policy pursued" (by the German government) "resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions."

If you agree with the current law as it stands in Germany and several other European countries, then you run into the curious dilemma that you would also have to deem several of the most prominent Holocaust historians as "Holocaust deniers," too. Professor Raul Hilberg, author of "The Destruction of the European Jews," does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all causes) at 5.1 million. Neither did Gerald Reitlinger, author of "The Final Solution," accept the six million figure. He estimated that the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information.

I hope you are finally understanding my point. I am certainly not trying to diminish or in any way deny that horrific crimes occured, as some (even you) would seem to allege. But I don't like the fact that censorship is being used to stifle all debate on the subject. Why should a researcher (or anyone at all) be threatened with imprisonment for simply making their cases based on their own studies or even their own opinions ? (Of course, aside from such issues as libel and defamation of character, which may be proved in a court of law.) We don't need Thought Police to protect us.

What ever happened to the idea of "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ???? (Again, to be perfectly clear, I am speaking in the context of this thread regarding opinion/discussion of historical events... freedom of speech certainly does NOT apply to libel or other defamation of character issues.)

I have to go and help pour some cement now, so I will have to return later to address some of the other comments/questions.

I don't know where you got your information, but nowhere in German laws does it state that you cannot discuss how many people died in the Holocaust. That would be truly ridiculous. It is however, a jailable offense to deny or belittle the Holocaust or to say that the extermination of Jews was a good thing. The reason this law exists is that any form of denial of the Holocaust is a denial of the victim's suffering and hence their humanity. This law (StGB par. 130) explicitly names another law that states that genocide is a crime punishable by international law; the term genocide is, however applied to psychological and physical pain inflicted on a certain ethnic group, restrictions on the procreation of a certain ethnic group, etc. VStGB par 6).

Nowhere does it say that 6 million people died in the Holocaust which would be a form of Holocaust denial in itself because number is much higher. Only pointing to the Jewish victims (even though they were in the majority) would also be a form of denial or belittling because there were also non-Jewish victims. I would be really interested where you got your information....

I know it is hard to understand why there are laws in Germany that do not allow you to deny the existence of the Third Reich. But on the other hand, why would anyone want to deny that the Nazi government heavily engaged in genocide and other crimes against humanity. But since you seem to believe this war is a big no-no in terms of free speech how do stand on the law in Turkey that makes discussing the genocide of Armenians and Kurds a punishable offense? And what would you say to someone who said that the US-law allowing to arrest and punish anyone who threatens to kill the president?

High And Kane In Matrix Nemo Of Dollar Now Life The Python Lawrence The Wars American Rear The Brian Schindler's Grail Of Citzen Pulp Baby Godfather Fiction Beauty Window Noon Star List Rain The Monty Finding Apocalypse Arabia Holy Million Singin'

3. Citizen Kane

Why don't promient muslim leaders show true outrage and denounce the violence of muslims killing innocent people in the name of thier God? To be such a peacful religion, it certainly is the most violent in all of the world. As such, it is worthy of such accurate depictions as a political statement.

Muslims have much work to do to change the image us non-muslims have of the faith.

Sighs... Muslim leaders and do and have shown outrage. The fact that our media is very selective about what (and who) they choose to air does not change that fact. What it does do however, is create a mistaken impression that religious fanaticism is dominant, which I don't think is necessarily accurate. There are moderate muslims, just as there are moderate christians.

I fully believe there are moderate muslims...unfortunately for the faith they are not the ones we hear from. They are not the ones making media reports every damn day of the week. We do see daily images of common muslim peoples spreading messages of hate. Clerics advocating jihad and moderate scholars rationalizing and justifying violence. We also see little children growing up with a lifes dream of being a suicide bomber in the name of their God. These are real and undisputable facts associated with muslim faith. And it is undeniable that the muslim faith is the most violent in the world. Yes, there are good muslims just as there are bad christians but the facts don't change. Just look at the rhetoric of the President of Iran.

What can the moderate muslims of the world do to improve the image of the faith? Rise up and wage JIHAD against those redical elements and show the outrage. Take your faith back and PROVE Islam to be a faith of peace. Until moderate muslims take responsibility and reclaim Islam from the radicals, the world will continue to view Islam as a religion of violence. Continued violence only confirms what many believe.

There are also Europeans and Americans who think the cartoons are distasteful and pointless unless meant as provocation. Nevertheless, those are not the voices we hear and most likely those are not the voices broadcast by the Middle Eastern or Southeast Asian media. You might as well say prove that Western values are about peace and understanding of cultures. Instead we see the likes of Samuel Huntington or George W. Bush beating the drum of culture clashes; it's "us" against "them," it's "civilization" against "savagery," and it's "modernity" against "medievalism." And the Western media is following the mantra of contrast and contradictions in the same way as the media in the Muslim world.

Additionally, it's of course all about sensation and what is more sensational than a group of turban-wearing brownish people burning European or American flags? What's sensational about some moderate Muslim going on TV and telling people to chill? Has anyone considered why we didn't see this uproar in September?

The whole affair is ridiculous and the way it escalates further every day on BOTH sides is even more ridiculous. The world is full of idiots and there is no reason to congratulate either side on their hate; doing so will just fuel the fires of extremism.

And I will bet that all their pics are with the right people! GO USA!!!!!

Just out of curiosity: and how does all this relate to the USA?

I must be a purpleneck then.

I am not defending anything. Just saying that the reaction proves the very point the cartoons were making.

Maybe, but it is also possible to say that the cartoons willingly provoked the reaction. If they had been published before the world according to GWB, there wouldn't have been this reaction. Two wrongs don't a a right.

The reaction has nothing to do with GWB. Rushdie and vanGogh were quite isolated from anything GWB and the reaction was all the same: death threats and actual murder.

I'd keep Rushdie out of the equation because it was the Ayatollah Khomeini who sentenced him to death in the 1980s and at that time most Muslims were appalled.

As to the VanGogh-murder, I do see a connection to the hate-rhetoric of "you're either for us or against us" that has effectively demonized Muslims. Until quite recently, Muslims and non-Muslims lived peacefully side-by-side across Europe. Now, that is becoming more and more difficult because many Muslims feel ostracized by the overgeneralizations in reaction to Islamic fanatics. I'm not trying to defend this action, but there is a growing climate of hate from both sides that doesn't need to be fueled any further.

So, civilized debate i/o death threats is an unreasonable expectation? I don't see masked German gunmen blockading offices and embassies of Muslim countries and calling in bomb threads to such places because Muslim fanatics have kidnapped and threaten to behead a number of German engineers.

No, it is not an unreasonable expectation at all. But the cartoons weren't published to kick off a civilized debate, but to see what would happen; the debate preceded the publication.

There is in journalism, particularly in western journalism, such a thing called self-censure, meaning that there are certain limits to what a journalist can do while staying within certain moral parameters. Given that the controversy over Muslims in Europe had already reached the limits of a civilized debate with conservative and other politicians proclaiming the end of the western world (Abendland) and that Muslim life in Europe has become increasingly subjected to the intolerant gaze of the public eye (think of the citizenship test in Baden Wuertemberg, the prohibition on headscarves for German teachers and French students and teachers, etc), it was pretty obvious that the next drop would cause the barrel to overflow. There was no need for the Danish newspaper to commission the cartoons.

I'm appalled at the way in which the controversy is stoked by radicals from both camps. I think it is absolutely pointless. The people proclaiming the imminent clash of civilizations are the ones who are listened to the most, if their name is Osama Bin Laden or GWB doesn't really matter (this list can be expanded endlessly). I (like you) grew up when the Cold War was coming to an end, and I still remember the rhetoric of hate that proclaimed that Americans and Russians were incompatible and the only way to win was to eradicate the other side. We were living on a battlefield that had been staked out by our allies for nuclear and conventional war. There is no reason to repeat the showdown of hate.

I am not defending anything. Just saying that the reaction proves the very point the cartoons were making.

Maybe, but it is also possible to say that the cartoons willingly provoked the reaction. If they had been published before the world according to GWB, there wouldn't have been this reaction. Two wrongs don't a a right.

The reaction has nothing to do with GWB. Rushdie and vanGogh were quite isolated from anything GWB and the reaction was all the same: death threats and actual murder.

I'd keep Rushdie out of the equation because it was the Ayatollah Khomeini who sentenced him to death in the 1980s and at that time most European Muslims were appalled.

As to the VanGogh-murder, I do see a connection to the hate-rhetoric of "you're either for us or against us" that has effectively demonized Muslims. Until quite recently, Muslims and non-Muslims lived peacefully side-by-side across Europe. Now, that is becoming more and more difficult because many Muslims feel ostracized by the overgeneralizations in reaction to Islamic fanatics. I'm not trying to defend this action, but there is a growing climate of hate from both sides that doesn't need to be fueled any further.

Addendum to my last post:

The appropriation of the Holocaust as a justification for the slaughter of Palestinians by the state of Israel is in my view also a form of Holocaust denial. If you portray yourself as a victim of genocide and then engage in genocide, it shows that you have not learned from your own victimization. I have wondered for a long time why Palestinians have not politicized this hypocrisy in their favor and instead fall for the rhetoric of Holocaust deniers which in effect disbands the state of Israel from this ethical conundrum.

Palestinians slaughter Israelis and vice versa. Neither are innocent.

Never said either were innocent. But it is ridiculous for Israelis to claim their status as genocidal victims while perpetrating genocide.

Cool! Looks like you found a way to get where you want to be. I totally understand your resentment, though. Good luck with everything and congrats on the job (it's a start. right?).

I am not defending anything. Just saying that the reaction proves the very point the cartoons were making.

Maybe, but it is also possible to say that the cartoons willingly provoked the reaction. If they had been published before the world according to GWB, there wouldn't have been this reaction. Two wrongs don't a a right.

... but it is as wrong as denying European Muslims the right to be upset about the caricatures of a religious figure as the root of evil. Both are hurtful and unnecessary.

Nobody denies anyone the right to be upset. But bomb-threads, gunmen, threats against the lives of EU workers overseas is just not the same as being upset. The only thing really hurtful, as I said above, is the forced look in the mirror and the realization that the cartoons do seem to make a valid point...

I'm not trying to suggest that the reactions of the Muslim community are right, but rather that the publication of the caricatures was wrong because of the tensions that already exist.

You can't defend the error of publication by pointing to the ridiculous reaction afterwards.

I would like to hear any experiences from medicals. I've had a medical done the in US before which was so low-key (except for the 8 attempts to do a chest x-ray) that it isn't even worth mentioning.

But thinking about my future-medical in Germany, I'm stuck with some questions.

1.) I'm currently getting my vaccinations up to date; however, there are certain vaccinations that I don't need because I had the disease (measles, mumps, pertussis, etc.). Is it enough if I have a slip of paper from my doctor stating that I have natural immunization or do I need a tither-test?

2.) I'm thinking of taking the medical at the consulate because the next approved physician is 3 hours away from here but I don't want to have to wait longer for the visa because of missing medical results. Now, I could easily take the blood test here since my insurance would pay for it. In the US, that was a possibility and it saved me a chunk of money on the medical. Since I know they're testing for HIV/AIDS and Syphillis in the blood test, can I go ahead and do the test?

3.) The urin sample: Last time, they tested for diabetes and other metabolism-related diseases. Do they also test for that outside the US? And if so, why? Again, if possible I would like to take the test beforehand and take the lab results with me to the medical, so that I get my visa asap after the interview.

4.) After the botched x-ray, I'm not really eligible for any more x-rays for a while. What to do?

Any insights are welcome.

Addendum to my last post:

The appropriation of the Holocaust as a justification for the slaughter of Palestinians by the state of Israel is in my view also a form of Holocaust denial. If you portray yourself as a victim of genocide and then engage in genocide, it shows that you have not learned from your own victimization. I have wondered for a long time why Palestinians have not politicized this hypocrisy in their favor and instead fall for the rhetoric of Holocaust deniers which in effect disbands the state of Israel from this ethical conundrum.

Why are we comparing the slaughter of millions of REAL people to the characture of a historic religous personality? The cartoons are not killing anyone. Apples and oranges, etc etc

I didn't bring it up, but the point is not comparing the slaughter of people to the caricatures but comparing the denial of the slaughter to the caricatures. If you deny victims the experience of genocide it is wrong, but it is as wrong as denying European Muslims the right to be upset about the caricatures of a religious figure as the root of evil. Both are hurtful and unnecessary.

I only started watching it cuz I thought the American Idol was going to be on. Boy was I wrong... It must have been one of the most boring things I've ever seen

What? The POTUS is not an "American Idol?"

Addendum to my last post:

The appropriation of the Holocaust as a justification for the slaughter of Palestinians by the state of Israel is in my view also a form of Holocaust denial. If you portray yourself as a victim of genocide and then engage in genocide, it shows that you have not learned from your own victimization. I have wondered for a long time why Palestinians have not politicized this hypocrisy in their favor and instead fall for the rhetoric of Holocaust deniers which in effect disbands the state of Israel from this ethical conundrum.

I was at a bar last night talking about the cartoons and some other issues with two friends (one a Ghanese-German, the other a Turkish-German). We realized during our conversation that the problem is not the portrayal of Mohammed in the papers, but the timing of the whole thing.

Many Europeans are in severe identity crisis, but not because of the Islamist threat but because of the increasing reach of the European Union into their lives. As a result, there are new waves of nationalism (the flag waving/chest beating kind). Consequently, many Europeans have grown more xenophobic, such as the Danes who have always taken great pride in their national identity. Add to that the whole "war on terrorism"-rhetoric and you will see that the equation Muslim=terrorist goes quite well with the equation Muslim=foreigner.

Quite a few European Muslims, who have lived here for several generations and who are citizens of their respective countries, are quite exasperated at the xenophobic reactions fueled by the anti-terrorist hate rhetoric. Now imagine that in the already tense situation someone publishes these cartoons. It's not that they are wrong as such, but when there is already a climate of hate and xenophobia, it's adding insult to injury.

P.S.: Denying the Holocaust is the same thing because it is hurtful to the people who actually experienced it. Keep in mind that not all victims of the Holocaust were Jewish, but that there was also a large number of homosexuals, mentally disabled, political opponents, and various Eastern European nationals, etc who died in the camps. Regardless of what you think about the state of Israel, the Holocaust is not something to off-handedly deny without showing disregard for humanity.

Sorry to hear that Nani's manager is such an automaton. I would definitely complain because an individual in power who does not respect the needs of his inferiors is a danger to the company. Despite what people might think, a manager's job includes administration of human resources for maximum profit; this does not mean writing up productive workers because they intermittently were less productive, but to retain productive workers and help them reach their maximum productivity. Companies in which managers treat their workers as fellow human beings are usually the most successful and enduring.

Good luck, Reinhard and Nani!

Hi,

the required vaccinations are listed on the homepage of the U.S. Department of state.

check this link: http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_1331.html

mumps, measels, rubella, polio, tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, pertussis, influenza b, hep B, varicella, pneumococcal and influenza.

Well, Im from Germany and the influenza b, also called hib, is just available if you are a child.

best regards

Isabel

Isabel,

you won't need all of them because a bunch depend on the country of origin. I will post the required vacc's for Germany as soon as I get the paperwork from the consulate.

s

There are a lot of Mexicans living in California

And in Texas, or Texico as we sometimes call it

Don't forget Arizona and New Mexico.

The weird thing about many Mexicans in those Southwestern states is that they have been living there much longer than their "American" neighbors. So, they might speak Spanish instead of English, but they are not immigrants...

Awesome, geally! Congrats and all the best for the remaining journey!