Integrity Legal

Those who follow this blog with an frequency are no doubt aware that the administration routinely posts the holiday closing schedules of the various US Missions in the Asia-Pacific as a courtesy to American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents traveling abroad. To quote directly from the official website of the US Embassy in Canberra, Australia:

Those wishing to view the official homepage of the US Embassy in Canberra, Australia please click HERE.

Those seeking services which can only be provided by a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad, such as: Consular Report of Birth Abroad issuance, US Passport issuance, or visa page issuance for a previously issued US Passport are well advised to contact the American Citizen Services (ACS) Section of the nearest US Post with appropriate Consular jurisdiction. Those seeking ACS services may be well advised to attempt to make an appointment with ACS online prior to arrival as doing so can streamline processing for both Officers and Americans seeking services abroad.

Those seeking non-immigrant visas to the USA such as the US student visa (F-1 visa) or the Exchange visitor visa (J-1 visa) are likely to see their visa application processed by a Non-Immigrant Visa Unit. It should be noted that non-immigrant visa applications are scrutinized pursuant to section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.

Those seeking family based visas such as the CR-1 visa or the IR-1 visa are likely to see their visa application processed at a US Post abroad only after receiving immigration petition approval from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). It should be noted that for overseas processing purposes the K-1 visa, a non-immigrant US fiance visa, is treated in much the same manner as the Immigrant spousal visas mentioned above.

Those seeking an EB-5 Visa or an L-1 visa are generally required to process an immigration petition prior to the commencement of the visa application process at a US Post abroad. E-2 visa seekers may be able to submit an application directly to a US Post abroad if the applicant is resident in the Consular jurisdiction.

As an American Resident Abroad, this blogger finds a certain sense of comfort in watching the lead up to the 2012 Presidential Election. For those who have been reading this blog with any kind of regularity it may have been noticed that the posting have become more centered upon issues arising in an American political context. To be clear, this blogger truly feels that the events transpiring in the United States can have a significant impact upon Asia as a whole and Southeast Asia in particular. This blogger has personally witnessed the way in which United States policy can impact the Kingdom of Thailand, for good and for ill. Clearly, what happens in Washington D.C. and on the campaign trail leading up to the 2012 election can have a tremendous effect upon the economies and polities that make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the broader Asia-Pacific region. Bearing that in mind, the reader should note that the administration of this blog is tracking the lead up to the 2012 election out of mere curiousity and will try to remain unbiased regarding the candidates themselves.

In politics, as in many other areas of life, “perception is reality”. This colloquialism is often interpreted to mean that a candidate’s portrayal in the media has a direct impact upon his or her chances of attaining national office. In many respects, this has been true in the past. The Michael Dukakis tank/helmet incident is a prime example of the way in which a public figure’s image can be portrayed in the media in such a way that it damages that candidate’s chances at the polls.

It would appear that the “Mainstream Media” outlet Fox News has been taking criticism for their portrayal of the recent victory of Representative Ron Paul at the CPAC straw poll. To quote directly from AAyles on the website twirlit.com:

A new video released today via YouTube shows footage from 2010 where Ron Paul was booed after winning the CPAC. So what’s the big deal, right? Well, the footage from 2010 was presented in a manner that made it seem as though it was from 2011.

Firstly, this blogger greatly encourages readers to click on the links above to watch the full video as it would appear that Fox News did indeed use footage from the previous CPAC straw poll which did show a less enthusiastic reception to the Ron Paul victory (to be clear, Ron Paul won both the CPAC straw poll in 2010 and the straw poll in 2011, but by a much wider margin in 2011). To quote further from AAyles on twirlit.com:

The video pretty much explains everything very clearly but the message we want to get across is that, despite what Fox News reported, Ron Paul was not booed when he was announced as the 2011 CPAC winner. Not at all, actually. As you can see in the video, there was nothing but loud cheers when Ron was announced as the 2011 winner.

It is interesting to note this apparent manipulation of the reporting of the Ron Paul CPAC victory as it shows how influential the “Mainstream Media” can be in the realm of political perception, but the incident also shows something else: the “Mainstream Media” may be in danger of losing their hold over key sectors of their audience. This is not to say that Fox News will discontinue their operation anytime soon. On the contrary, it would appear as though National News organizations will continue to thrive, but machinations once used to influence the audience are being exposed so quickly through the “Alternative Media” (namely, websites, blogs, the blogosphere, social media, youtube, etc) that there is a sort of grassroots “blowback” (to borrow a phrase from the intelligence community) that occurs following incidents such as the one described above. It stands to reason that anytime a media outlet is discredited it will have an adverse impact upon the way in which said outlet is viewed by the public-at-large in the future. The issue for mainstream media is one of survival, in order to maintain relevance in an increasingly “Alternative Media” saturated society “Mainstream Media” outlets must guard against being portrayed as “taking a side” in an issue lest their viewers choose to seek their news and information via other channels. The fact that Fox News was so quickly vilified for their portrayal of the CPAC straw poll outcome goes to show how tremendously effective the “alternative media” can be when it comes to disseminating information, especially information about “Mainstream Media” mistakes or misinformation.

In many ways, the upcoming Presidential Election will be interesting, not because of the outcome; but because it will showcase what appears to be a “Mainstream Media” heading into decline.

For related information please see: Patriot Act Extension.

It has recently come to this blogger’s attention through anecdotal evidence that there may have been a relatively significant increase in the number of I-601 waiver petitions filed by American Citizens in both the Kingdom of Thailand as well as the greater area that comprises the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Apparently, the majority of these cases are being handled pro se (without attorney representation). It would appear that these pro se filings are being subjected to Requests For Evidence (RFE) which can be time consuming. Furthermore, there are some who also speculate that such petitions could see a higher denial rate.

Those who read this blog may have taken notice of the fact that this blogger takes the practice of United States Immigration law seriously. That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with American Citizens unilaterally petitioning their government for United States Immigration benefits pro se. This blogger has no problem with those who wish to seek immigration benefits without the assistance of counsel, but those pondering this course of action should be aware of the risks. First, the assistance of an American attorney in the US Immigration process can prove highly beneficial as such a professional can provide insight into the dynamics of immigration law as well as the regulations which are used to enforce that law.

Immigration law could be likened to dermatological medicine insofar as the routine cases that arise in an immigration context are sometimes easily taken care of by the petitioner or beneficiary themselves much the same way that a case of acne could be alleviated without the need to visit a dermatologist. Meanwhile, some issues which arise in immigration law can be extremely complicated and therefore such matters may require the assistance of one with a great deal of experience in matters pertaining to American immigration law. This state of affairs brings to mind a hypothetical situation involving dermatologists who specialize in skin cancers and various other skin maladies which are not commonly known to laymen. To take this hypothetical further, a patient afflicted with skin cancer is usually unable to treat themselves. To use this hypothetical as an analogy in an immigration context: those seeking an I-601 waiver are in a situation, similar to the skin cancer patient mentioned above, which may require professional assistance as failure to retain an attorney could increase the chances that an I-601 waiver (or for that matter an I-212 waiver) will be ultimately denied.

The standard of proof in an I-601 waiver is “extreme hardship” and this standard is not easily overcome. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has noted that “extreme hardship” does not mean “mere separation,” of the couple, but is, in fact, something more substantial. American Immigration lawyers expend a great deal of time and effort to see that I-601 waiver petitions are well founded. As a result, such petitions may be at a lower risk of being denied. Bearing this in mind, no attorney, or anyone else for that matter, can foresee what the outcome of a waiver petition will be. Those reading this posting should not misconstrue the author’s message by inferring that retaining an attorney will result in a guaranteed outcome as this is simply not the case. Should an I-601 waiver petition be denied, then it may be possible to have the case reconsidered in a Motion to Reopen or through an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Under such circumstances, the case will be adjudicated based upon an “abuse of discretion” standard which is not easily overcome. Therefore, submitting a well founded I-601 waiver petition the first time can be imperative for those wishing to have a legal grounds of inadmissibility waived.

As always, those seeking representation or counsel in matters related to American immigration should check the credentials of anyone in Southeast Asia claiming expertise in such matters. Only an attorney licensed to practice law in the United States is entitled charge fees to represent clients before the Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, or American Missions abroad.

For related information about this issue please see: US Visa Denial.

Frequent readers of this blog may have taken notice of the fact that the administration routinely posts the current estimated processing times for the domestic Service Centers of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). The following was quoted directly from the official website of USCIS:

It should be noted that the above processing estimates do not take into consideration that once cases are processed out of USCIS they must be sent to the United States National Visa Center and then on to a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad for further adjudication (this analysis assumes that the foreign beneficiary is residing outside of the USA). The processing times noted above pertain to USCIS exclusively. Therefore, the overall process of obtaining a K-1 visa or a K-3 visa for an alien fiance or spouse could take more time that that noted above. for fin

For related information please see: K-1 Visa Thailand, K-1 Visa Indonesia, or K-1 Visa Vietnam.

หนึ่งในผู้ก่อตั้งสหรัฐอเมริกา และผู้ที่เป็นเรอเนสซองค์อย่างแท้จริง เบนจามิน แฟรงคลินเคยกล่าวไว้ว่า “ในโลกนั้นไม่มีอะไรที่แน่นอน ยกเว้นความตายและภาษี” คำที่เป็นความจริงกว่านั้นภาษีและความตายดูเหมือนจะเป็นอย่างนั้นมาจนกระทั่งปัจจุบันเหมือนที่เคยเป็นมาในยุค 1700 สิ่งที่พึงระลึกถึงก็คือ ผู้เขียนอยากจะแจ้งเตือนชาวอเมริกันที่อยู่นอกสหรัฐอเมริกาที่ยังไม่เข้าใจในกฎหมายอเมริกันเกี่ยวกับภาษีของคนอเมริกันที่อยู่ต่างประเทศ สิ่งที่ปรากฏชัดเจนคือ ผู้ที่อาศัยอยู่นอกสหรัฐอเมริกานั้นอาจจะเข้าใจผิดพลาดเกี่ยวกับการเสียภาษีนอกสหรัฐอเมริกาว่าไม่เกี่ยวกับภาษีรายได้ของชาวอเมริกัน ตามความเป็นจริงแล้ว ไม่มีอะไรที่จะได้เพิ่มเติมจากข้อเท็จจริงในกฎระเบียบของการเสียภาษีสหรัฐอเมริกา

อ้างโดยตรงจากเว็บไซต์อย่างเป็นทางการของหน่วยบริการภาษีภายในประเทศ IRS.gov:

หากคุณเป็นพลเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาหรือชาวต่างชาติ กฎระเบียบสำหรับการยื่นการขอคืนภาษีจากรายได้ อสังหาริมทรัพย์ ของกำนัล และการจ่ายภาษีล่วงหน้า หลักโดยทั่วไปแล้วเหมือนกัน ไม่ว่าคุณจะอยู่ในสหรัฐอเมริกาหรือต่างประเทศ รายได้ของคุณทั่วโลกนั้นเป็นต้องเสียภาษีรายได้สหรัฐอเมริกา  โดยไม่คำนึงถึงว่า คุณจะพำนักอยู่ที่ใด

จากที่เห็นได้จากคติดังกล่าว ชาวอเมริกันที่ทำงานหรือได้รับรายได้ในต่างประเทศ ยังคงต้องเสียภาษีอเมริกัน แม้ว่าข้อเท็จจริง เขานั้นจะอยู่นอกประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกาก็ตาม คนจำนวนมากไม่เห็นด้วยกับนโยบายภาษีในปัจจุบันสำหรับคนที่อาศัยอยู่ต่างประเทศ แต่ตามกฎหมายแล้วคนอเมริกันต้องจ่ายภาษีแม้ว่ารายได้จะเกิดนอกสหรัฐอเมริกาก็ตาม อาจกล่าวได้ว่า ในทางปฏิบัติแล้วยังคงมี สิทธิประโยชน์ที่เกี่ยวเนื่องกับคนอเมริกันที่อาศัยอยู่ต่างประเทศ อ้างเพิ่มเติมจากหน้าเดียวกันของเว็บไซต์บริการภาษีภายใน :

หากคุณอาศัยอยู่ต่างประเทศ หรืออยู่ในระหว่างการรับราชการทหารนอกสหรัฐอเมริกา คุณจะได้รับการยกเว้นภาษีโดยขยายเวลาไปถึง 2 เดือนที่จะยื่นการขอคืนจนกระทั่งวันที่ 15 มิถุนายน แต่อย่างไรก็ตาม กำหนดการเสียภาษีต้องจ่ายโดยวันที่ที่กำหนดขอคืน (วันที่ 15 เมษายน)เพื่อที่จะไม่ต้องถูกเรียกเก็บดอกเบี้ย

สิ่งที่ต้องคำนึงถึงเพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับชาวอเมริกันที่อาศัยอยู่ต่างประเทศนั้นเป็นรายได้ที่ได้รับจากต่างประเทศซึ่งชาวอเมริกันที่อาศัยอยู่ต่างประเทศจะได้รับการยกเว้นการจ่ายภาษีจากรายได้ที่ได้รับในระดับที่แน่นอน อ้างโดยตรงจากเว็บไซต์ของหน่วยบริการภาษีภายในจากหัวข้อข้อจำกัดความคุ้มครองรายได้จากต่างประเทศ:

หากคุณเป็นพลเมืองอเมริกัน หรือเป็นชาวต่างชาติของอเมริกาและคุณอาศัยอยู่ต่างประเทศ คุณต้องเสียภาษีจากรายได้ของคุณที่เกิดขึ้นจากทั่วโลก อย่างไรก็ตาม คุณอาจจะมีคุณสมบัติที่ได้รับการยกเว้นจากรายได้ที่ขึ้นอยู่กับต่างประเทศซึ่งอาจจะมีการปรับเปลี่ยนตามอัตราเงินเฟ้อ ($91,400 ในปี 2009, $91,500 ในปี 2010, $92,900 ในปี 2011) นอกจากนี้ คุณสามารถที่จะได้รับการยกเว้นหรือลดภาษีจากรายได้ที่ได้รับจากต่างประเทศ

สิ่งที่ต้องตระหนักถึงคือ “การอาศัยอยู่ต่างประเทศ” ไม่ได้หมายถึงการอาศัยอยู่ในช่วงเวลาสั้นๆนอกประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกา ในความเป็นจริงแล้ว ผู้ที่ประสงค์ที่จะอ้างถึงการยกเว้นที่กล่าวไปแล้วข้างต้นอาจจะต้องการที่จะใช้เวลานอกสหรัฐอเมริกา IRSได้ใช้การทดสอบในลักษณะทางกายภาพที่จะชี้วัดว่า ชาวอเมริกันที่อาศัยอยู่ต่างประเทศมีคุณสมบัติเป็นไปตามข้อจำกัดสิทธิเรื่องรายได้ที่ได้รับจากต่างประเทศ อ้างโดยตรงจากหน้าอื่นของเว็บไซต์ IRS.gov :

คุณจะได้รับการทดสอบทางกายภาพหากคุณอยู่ในต่างประเทศหรือประเทศอื่นๆ 330 วัน ในระหว่างช่วงเวลา 12 เดือนติดต่อกัน ช่วงเวลา 330วัน ช่วงเวลา 330 วันตามคุณสมบัติอาจไม่ใช่ช่วงเวลาที่ต่อเนื่อง การทดสอบทางกายภาพอาจจะใช้กับทั้งพลเมืองสหรัฐและชาวต่างชาติที่อาศัยอยู่

บทความนี้มีความตั้งใจที่จะแสดงให้เห็นว่า  ผู้ที่สนใจในประเด็นเรื่องภาษีอเมริกันและกฎระเบียบของภาษีอเมริกันมีผลกระทบต่อชาวอเมริกันที่อาศัยอยู่นอกประเทศ บทความนี้ไม่ได้แสดงความเห็นทั้งหมดในการวิเคราะห์และความเข้าใจของพฤติการณ์เรื่องภาษี ผู้ที่สนใจและต้องการได้รับคำแนะนำเพิ่มเติม ควรที่จะติดต่อผู้เชี่ยวชาญที่ได้รับอนุญาต ในขณะที่เขียนบทความนี้เครือข่ายของ อินทิกรตี้ ลีเกิ้ลประกอบไปด้วยทนายความอเมริกันที่ได้รับอนุญาตในการฝึกปฏิบัติกฎหมายก่อนที่จะส่งศาลภาษีในสหรัฐอเมริกา

To view this information in English please see: Expat Tax Return.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Homeland Security‘s United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has implemented a program to issue advance parole authorization on the same document as that of employment authorization. To quote directly from the official website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS):

WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced that it is now issuing employment and travel authorization on a single card for certain applicants filing an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, Form I-485. This new card represents a significant improvement from the current practice of issuing paper Advance Parole documents.

The card looks similar to the current Employment Authorization Document (EAD) but will include text that reads, “Serves as I-512 Advance Parole.” A card with this text will serve as both an employment authorization and Advance Parole document. The new card is also more secure and more durable than the current paper Advance Parole document.

For those who are unfamiliar with the K-1 visa process, the adjustment of status occurs after a foreign fiancee arrives in America, marries the American petitioner, and files to have their status regularized to that of Lawful Permanent Resident. The card that is given to the foreign spouse is often colloquially referred to as a “Green Card”. Prior to adjustment of status, if a foreign fiancee leaves the USA, then they will need to obtain an advance parole travel document in order to keep their visa status alive and thereby permit reentry to the USA. Failure to obtain advance parole could result in a foreign fiancee losing his or her visa upon departure from the USA and thereby compelling them to go through the whole process anew.

An employment authorization document permits foreign fiancees in the United States on a K-1 visa to work prior to being approved for Green Card status. In many instances, couples opt not to apply for employment authorization and simply await the foreign fiance’s adjustment to Lawful Permanent Residence.

Once a foreign fiance is adjusted to lawful permanent residence, he or she may still be required to eventually apply for a lift of conditions. Those in the USA as a lawful permanent resident based upon marriage are placed in conditional status for the first two years of their presence in the USA if the couple was married less than 2 years at the time they acquired lawful permanent residence.

The above analysis could be utilized for K3 visa purposes as well. However, as the K-3 visa is currently being issued in very rare instances due to administrative closure policies at the National Visa Center, this blogger only mentions this issue as an aside.

For related information please see: K-1 Visa Thailand.

This blogger writes this blog post with an eye on the news circulating from the United States Congress. As a United States Citizen and as a Citizen of the State of Kansas this blogger would ask the United States Government: think what you are asking America to stomach this February 2011, and then understand our frustration at your seeming unwillingness to properly discuss the issues that impact Americans’ lives most

The question of the so-called Patriot Act. You ask us to support the extension of a bill that, to quote Mr. Bruce Alpert, Times-Picayune on the website NOLA.com:

The Patriot Act bill would have renewed the authority for court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. Also addressed was Section 215, the so-called library records provision that gives the FBI court-approved access to “any tangible thing” relevant to a terrorism investigation.

The third deals with the “lone-wolf” provision of a 2004 anti-terror law that permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. people not known to be affiliated with a specific terrorist organization.

America, the land of the Free and the home of the Brave allows access to “any tangible thing” relevant to a “terrorism investigation” and calls this compliance with the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution? Furthermore, so-called “roving” wiretaps, a term which could, and possibly should, be interpreted incredibly broadly; may allow government access to a huge range of private personal correspondence at little government effort. The extreme nature of the Patriot Act’s provisions beg the question: why is the issue of the American people being further subjected to the provisions of this law being seemingly fast tracked? Furthermore, why is this legislation being fast tracked in light of recent findings that the FBI may systematically have violated many Americans 4th amendment rights on a regular basis?

As a Citizen of the State of Kansas and as an American Citizen Resident Abroad I must take exception with the proposed extension of the so-called “lone wolf” surveillance noted above. Is this what we want to show our allies (and, dare I say, our enemies) at a time we need their goodwill the most? Are we going to show that we continue to endorse this sort of behavior on the part of our government as it pertains to “non-U.S.” people? Then if it is such a good idea, why not debate the matter? Why attempt to “fast track” this legislation through? Why is there never enough time to discuss these issues? In a recent posting on the website opencongress.org, the poster, Donny Shaw noted how seemingly obsessed the US House of Representatives seems to have recently become with some of the minutia of Congressional business while trying to quickly pass the Patriot Act extension brooking little discussion:

On Wednesday the Rules Committee got together for 10 minutes to decide that extending the three most controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act would be allowed 1 hour of debate on the floor. The day before that they met for more than an hour and decided to give 9.5 hours of debate to …wait for it… a non-binding resolution directing committees to hold hearings on regulations that businesses don’t like.

Distinguished Gentlemen and Gentlewomen who make up our legislative branch of government, can you see from the above citation how the common American might view your handling of this Patriot Act extension matter as rather, well, perfunctory? I would hope that you do not take this the wrong way, but as a law abiding tax paying Citizen I want some oversight! I want some debate! I want someone to stand up and take notice of the giant wall of lies that has been built up around the Patriot Act and the way in which it is utilized. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution is not just some ordinary document that is tread upon with impunity. The Constitution is woven into the inherent fabric of the American being. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution contains the reference to the preexisting and inalienable right of the People of the United States to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Yes, a RIGHT! Citizens have them. States have them, human beings have them!

When one attempts to restrict or infringe upon something that is inherent to the being of a natural person or a body politic then that person or body politic cries out. This outcry occurs in much the same way as the human body cries out in pain as someone or something tries to harm it. In fact, to capture the zeitgeist of President Obama and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., that type of cry from the body politic comes with the “fierce urgency of now!” The body politic is crying out with a fierce urgency and it is crying for an end to the Patriot Act.

112th United States Congress, this blogger asks you to ponder this: personal freedom is not a partisan issue. To quote Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” And to drive home the point further this blogger must quote Republican President Ronald Reagan when he stood at the Eastern outpost of the Free World and demanded at the Brandenburg Gate that the Soviet Union “Tear Down This Wall!” This blogger was a toddler when that event unfolded, but it may be the defining moment of a generation as the shackles of tyranny were loosed and the mighty Titans known as Liberty and Freedom were once again free to take their rightful place in Central and Eastern Europe. These notions have flourished in these locations, but the tree from whence this fruit has sprung is sickly as of late. That is why this blogger urges Congress to tear down this law! Show the world that we are America, land of the free!

This blogger was unhappy to watch a recent YouTube interview in which it was noted by Representative Ron Paul, a staunch opponent of the so-called “Patriot Act,” that the United States Congress was apparently wanting to pass the “Patriot Act” extension “as quietly as possible”. Why does this legislation need to be passed as quietly as possible? Is it because it might be MASSIVELY UNPOPULAR! No one really cares about polls and focus groups when it comes to matters of freedom from government surveillance. To put it simply: people do not like the Patriot Act. In fact, it would appear that notwithstanding little floor time devoted to discussion on the matter of the possible extension, there appears to be a very broad cross-section of the American body politic that does not favor extending the restrictions imposed by the Patriot Act. Representative Dennis Kucinich has recently made his feelings on the matter heard when he noted that it would “behoove the White House to align itself with the Constitution.” Representative Kucinich has also praised the Tea Party movement, or perhaps specifically the core of the Tea Party Movement, for adhering to the Constitution in voting to not extend the any provisions of the so-called Patriot Act. Perhaps the same bi-partisan accolades could be extended to the Republicans? Although this would seem unlikely as the so-called “Mainstream” Section of the Grand Old Party seems to hope for quick passage for the extension of the restriction of Americans’ right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. That said, some “Mainstream” Republicans broke away and voted against the extension. Such activity should be encouraged and hopefully others from the GOP will see “the light” and follow suit.

The Patriot Act, in many ways, is a symbol of everything that is going wrong within the American System. The negative reverberating clang from the Patriot Act can be felt when the American people have their private parts groped prior to boarding virtually any conveyance for air travel. That same reverberation can be felt when body scanners bombard American travelers with questionably healthy levels of radiation. The reverberation can be felt when the free flow of ideas is chilled by legislation designed to stifle the inherent rights guaranteed in the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Constitution is not a “talking point” it is not a “sound bite” it is not a “meme”. It is the Supreme Law of The United States of America and its provisions are to be guarded zealously. The efforts and votes of the triumvirate of the Tea Party Caucus should not be overlooked in this posting. To quote directly from the Washington Post:

The Republicans who voted no Tuesday night included Roscoe G. Bartlett (Md.), Paul Broun (Ga.) and Walter B. Jones (N.C.), all of whom were original members of the House Tea Party Caucus when it was founded last summer.

The administration of this blog highly recommends interested parties click on the link above to read the full posting by the Washington Post and receive a more precise breakdown of the voting on this issue. From all of the evidence presented above, it is clear that the movement to let the Patriot Act expire has been given a boost by the incoming Congress. To the Federal legislators who voted for the Patriot Act extension, bear this in mind; the voters are watching this issue carefully. As a legislator, one could look at this as an opportunity. This blogger must ask any legislators reading this to imagine Bill Murray’s character, Dr. Peter Venkman, in the original Ghostbusters movie when reading the following line: if you, the US Congress vote against this measure, then YOU, the legislators, could save the rights of millions of registered voters!

To those Federal legislators debating which way to vote on this issue, ponder this: you do not need to “enhance your credibility” when you vote in favor of the United States Constitution. There need be no “spin”. You just tell the people something like this: “Yeah, the Patriot Act, it violates our rights, I voted against it, next question.” An easy one, isn’t that a Win-Win? In the era of politics 2.0 the electorate is acutely aware of the activities of our elected representatives and we expect our interests to be taken into consideration when voting on matters that pertain to our civil and Constitutional rights.

To the legislators who voted against the Patriot Act, thank you, your courage will not be forgotten. To those who continue to vote for this legislation please be advised: 2012 is coming and electorate 2.0 has a surprisingly longer memory than you might think.

– Benjamin Walter Hart

For related information please see: Patriot Act Extension.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that many of the Stock Exchanges around the world are in open discussion regarding possible merger. It would appear that many of the companies which operate various bourses around the globe are keen to exploit the efficiencies and opportunities which could arise as a result of multi-jurisdictional trading. This is even true in the case of the United States of America as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) could be merged with an exchange in Frankfurt, Germany. The official website of America’s National Public Radio has more information regarding this issue. To quote directly from NPR.org:

The company that operates the New York Stock Exchange could soon be acquired by a European company in a deal that could be announced as soon as next week.

NYSE Euronext, the company that owns the New York Stock Exchange and stock and derivatives markets throughout Europe, has confirmed it’s in advanced talks with Deutsche Boerse, which owns the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. The deal would create the world’s largest financial exchange, with headquarters in both Europe and the U.S.

Those reading this blog are encouraged to go to the posting noted above to read the full story.

It should be noted that the United States is not the only country whose stock market is contemplating merger with that of a foreign jurisdiction. It recently was announced that the Canadian Stock Exchange (TMX) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE) are in talks about entering deals to merge those two securities exchange platforms. The Financial Times has been reporting on this state of affairs over the past several days. It would appear that the initial enthusiasm that erupted from the announcement that the Canadian and London Exchanges may be merging was overshadowed by the more recent announcement regarding the NYSE and the German Bourse. To quote directly from the official website of the Financial Times, FT.com:

The limelight may have rapidly moved to the US and Germany but those behind the merger of the London Stock Exchange and TMX, operator of Canada’s largest bourse, insist it was the right deal to do…

The deal, which will create a company worth more than $5bn (£3.1bn), is intended to create the world’s leading cash equities platform for mining companies, as countries including Brazil, China and Mongolia look to exploit their natural resources.

Those seeking further information on this topic are well advised to visit the Financial Times posting noted above.

This blogger was interested when reading the above cited story because the country of Mongolia would appear interested in having their business interests represented on a British-Canadian exchange rather than an exchange in Asia. Mongolia’s desire to acquire investment capital may have been “trumped” by worries that listing on an exchange in Asia would run counter to the country’s strategic long term geopolitical interests.

It should be noted that the American, Canadian, British, and German stock exchanges are not the only ones which have been discussing possible merger. In fact, the Australian Securities Exchange and the Singapore Stock Exchange have been working out the details of a merger for months. The announcements from the North American, British, and European exchanges regarding possible merger may be a catalyst for the Australian and Singaporean exchanges to conclude their merger discussions more quickly. To quote directly from a posting on the Sydney Morning Herald‘s official website SMH.com.au:

A RUSH of merger proposals among the world’s biggest stock exchanges over the past two days is expected to increase pressure on Canberra to approve Singapore Stock Exchange’s $8.4 billion move on the Australian Securities Exchange.

But with the trans-Atlantic deals designed with an eye to overcoming political concerns, Singapore could be forced to restructure its proposal to give the ASX a greater role in any tie-up.

The administration of this web log encourages readers to visit the posting cited above in order to get the full details of the proposed merger between the Singapore Stock Exchange and the Australia Securities Exchange.

There have been a great many announcements regarding stock exchanges in Southeast Asia. Recently, it was announced that the small Southeast Asian nation of Laos was opening a stock exchange to trade Lao securities. Apparently, the Laos Stock Exchange has been operating smoothly since its opening. Meanwhile, it has also been noted that the Southeast Asian nation of Myanmar (also referred to by its former name, Burma) is contemplating the establishment of a Burmese Stock Exchange. However, it remains to be seen whether or not this idea will actually come to fruition as Myanmar remains the subject of sanctions and there are many who believe that the country must deal with humanitarian issues prior to undertaking economic programs such as the establishment of a Burmese Bourse. In fact, there are some who argue that so long as Western sanctions remain imposed against Burma that it will be unlikely that an exchange will be opened in that country. That said, anything could happen and the actual establishment of a Burmese stock exchange remains to be seen.

More concrete plans for the opening of a stock exchange appear to be taking shape in the Southeast Asian nation of Cambodia as further steps have been taken toward the proposed opening of a Cambodian Securities Exchange in mid-2011. The following was quoted directly from the official website of the Phnom Penh Post, PhnomPenhPost.com:

PHNOM Penh Securities opened its doors yesterday, becoming the third of seven approved underwriters to open ahead of the planned launch of the Cambodian stock exchange later this year.

Chairman of the firm, Kay Vat, said a key focus of the business would be guiding foreign firms planning to invest in the Kingdom’s listed companies.

Those wishing to learn more about the proposed Cambodian Stock Exchange are well advised to visit the Phnom Penh Post website noted above.

In other postings on this blog it was noted that the Cambodian Exchange is set to commence trading on or around June of this year. At present, there does not appear to be any talk of a merger between the Thai Stock Exchange (often referred to as the SET) and that of any other nation. Furthermore, Chinese officials do not seem particularly predisposed to any type of multi-jurisdictional merger between those exchanges operating in China and those operating in other countries. However, those following this issue should resist the urge to completely rule out such a possibility, but it seems unlikely in the near future as Thai and Chinese officials do not seem poised to make such an announcement.

Stock Exchanges remain an effective tool for countries wishing to attract foreign capital as many foreign investors enjoy the transparency and greater efficiency that comes from trading on an open exchange. That said, the impact from the  “ripple effect” that may result from the merger of the Canadian, American, British, and German Exchanges remain to be seen as the effect of such mergers could reverberate in the economies that make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

American individuals or American companies conducting business abroad should note the fact that all Americans (both natural persons and corporate entities) are required to adhere to the provisions of the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is a piece of legislation which attempts to regulate the activity of Americans abroad in a business context. The act is designed to decrease the incidents of graft and corruption perpetrated by Americans doing business abroad. American businesses and individuals investing or doing business abroad may find the assistance of an attorney useful when attempting to comply with the FCPA in an international context.

For related information please see: Thailand Company or US Company Registration.

ในขณะที่โลกของออนไลน์ สิ่งที่อยู่ในความสนใจของบล็อกเกอร์ในหัวข้อของการแต่งงานของเพศเดียวกันในสหรัฐอเมริกาและการทำให้สิทธิเท่าเทียมกันของคู่เพศเดียวกันในสหรัฐอเมริกา เป็นสิ่งที่ปรากฏชัดว่า นางบาร์บารา บุช (ไม่ใช่สตรีหมายเลขหนึ่งคนก่อน แต่เป็นหลานของเธอ)ออกมาเสนอสิทธิที่เท่าเทียมกันในการแต่งงาน อ้างโดยตรงจากผู้เขียนบทความ Candace Chellew-Hodge ลงในเว็บไซต์ religiondispatches.org:

อันดับแรก เมื่อสมาชิกวุฒิสภาของอริโซนา เมแกน ลูกสาวของจอห์น แมคเคนผู้ซึ่งออกมาในฐานะที่เป็นรีพับลิกันอายุน้อยซึ่งสนับสนุนสิทธิที่เท่าเทียมกันของเกย์และเลสเบี้ยน ขณะนี้ลูกสาวคนเล็กของประธานาธิบดีคนก่อนจอร์จ ดับเบิ้ลยู บุชเช่นเดียวกับแม่ของเธอลอร์ล่า ประกาศอย่างเป็นทางการว่า เธอสนับสนุนความเท่าเทียมกันของการแต่งงาน ในวิดีโอที่เผยแพร่เมื่อสัปดาห์นี้โดยการรณรงค์สิทธิมนุษยชน บาร์บารา บุชอ้างด้วยตนเองว่า “ชาวนิวยอร์กเพื่อความเท่าเทียมกันในการแต่งงาน”

เป็นเรื่องที่น่าสนใจว่า ประเด็นเรื่องความเท่าเทียมกันในการแต่งงานอาจจะไม่ทำให้เกิดปฏิกิริยาจากสมาชิกในช่วงวัยที่แตกต่างกัน ในช่วงเวลาหนึ่ง ประเด็นของการแต่งงานของคู่เพศเดียวกันและสิทธิของเลสเบี้ยน เกย์ ไบเซ็กชวล คนที่แปลงเพศ (LGBT)ค่อนข้างเป็นประเด็นที่ถกเถียงกัน โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งภายในพรรครีพับลิกัน ปรากฏเห็นได้ชัดเจนว่า ผู้ที่มีหัวก้าวหน้ามีแนวโน้มต่อเรื่องนี้ มากกว่าผู้ที่เคร่งศาสนาซึ่งจะมีประเด็นส่วนตัวกับการปฏิบัติซึ่งเป็นเสรีภาพส่วนบุคคลและสิทธิที่จะอยู่กับคนรักบนพื้นฐานของทั้งประสบการณ์มนุษย์และความฝันของคนอเมริกัน อย่างไรก็ตามไม่ใช่ทุกคนที่จะรู้สึกแบบเดียวกัน อ้างจากเว็บไซต์ที่กล่าวถึงข้างบน:

จากมุมมองของเครือข่ายครอบครัวอเมริกัน บล็อกเกอร์เจนนี ไทรีไม่แปลกใจที่นางบุชและนางแมคเคนสนับสนุนความเสมอภาคในการแต่งงาน “เป็นช่วงเวลาที่ง่ายสำหรับ 20-หรือบางอย่าง หรือหลายพันปีในการที่จะก้าวกระโดดกิจกรรมที่มีคนจำนวนมากสนับสนุนคู่
แต่งงานเพศเดียวกัน” เธอเขียน จากการสังเกตการณ์กลุ่มคนจำนวนมากในช่วงอายุ 18-29 ปี สนับสนุนความเสมอภาคในการแต่งงาน

ผู้ที่อ่านบทความนี้จะได้รับคำแนะนำที่ดีในการที่จะเข้าไปที่ religiondispatches.org เพื่อที่จะอ่านเรื่องราวทั้งหมด อาจกล่าวได้ว่า สิ่งที่บล็อกเกอร์อ้างถึงนั้น ยี่สิบบางอย่าง แม้ว่าอาจจะเป็นช่วงยี่สิบปลายๆแล้วก็เกลียดที่จะใช้คำจำกัดความของคำว่า “หลายพันปี” เมื่ออธิบายถึงช่วงอายุแต่ละวัยของชาวอเมริกันที่มาเป็นสหัสวรรษใหม่ เหตุผลของการต่อต้านมาจากข้อเท็จจริงที่ทำให้คนทั่วไปรู้สึกเหมือนว่า ดอกไม้กำลังบานในช่วงปีแรกมากกว่าในยุคของวัยที่มีความรอบรู้ผู้ที่จะสามารถแสดงความเห็นได้หลากหลายประเด็นแต่นี่เป็นการพูดนอกประเด็น

ตามข้อมูลที่อยู่บนพื้นฐานของกฎหมายคนเข้าเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาเป็นข้อเท็จจริงที่อยู่ภายใต้กรอบทางกฎหมายซึ่งเรียกว่า พระราชบัญญัติต่อต้านการแต่งงาน(DOMA) รัฐบาลกลางปฏิเสธถึงความเหมาะสมของการแต่งงานคู่เพศเดียวกัน ไม่ว่าอย่างไรก็ตามข้อเท็จจริงที่สหรัฐอเมริกาต้องตระหนักถึงและทำให้จริงจังมากขึ้น มีผู้คนจำนวนมากที่โต้เถียงเกี่ยวกับการออกกฎหมายที่ไม่เป็นไปตามบทบัญญัติของรัฐธรรมนูญ เนื่องจากมีการยกเลิกสิทธิพิเศษเกี่ยวกับการแต่งงานภายใต้เขตอำนาจเดียวกัน นอกจากนี้ ความเห็นของผู้เขียนซึ่งทางปฏิบัติในปัจจุบันละเมิดต่อ หลักความศรัทธาและความเชื่อถือของรัฐธรรมนูญสหรัฐอเมริกา ในขณะเดียวกันการถอนสิทธิบุคคลออกจากการปกป้องความเท่าเทียมกันภายใต้รัฐธรรมนูญสหรัฐอเมริกาและสิทธิภายใต้ทฤษฎี  “การพิสูจน์ตามขั้นตอน” ในบริบทของคนเข้าเมือง มีการเปลี่ยนแปลงในสภาคองเกรสสหรัฐอเมริกาในนการจัดการกับประเด็นที่เกี่ยวกับคู่เพศเดียวกันแต่งงาน โดยส่วนมาก ผู้แทนเจอร์รัลด์ เนดเดิลพยายามที่จะทำให้พระราชบัญญัติการรวมครอบครัวอเมริกัน (UAFA)ซึ่งจะช่วยทำให้ประเภทของวีซ่าสำหรับ “คู่ถาวร”ของพลเมืองอเมริกันและผู้มีถิ่นฐานถาวรถูกต้องตามกฎหมายอเมริกา ในขณะที่เขียนบทความนี้ กฎหมายยังไม่ผ่านสภา

ภายใต้มุมมองกฎหมายของรัฐบาล คู่เพศเดียวกันที่มีสองสัญชาติไม่อนุญาตที่จะให้สิทธิประโยชน์ของวีซ่าครอบครัวของสหรัฐอเมริกาอย่างเท่าเทียมกันกับคู่ต่างเพศซึ่งอาจจะละเมิดพระราชบัญญัติ DOMA หวังเป็นอย่างยิ่งว่า การสนับสนุนของกลุ่มคนรุ่นใหม่ของชาวอเมริกันในประเด็นเหล่านี้จะเป็นการเปลี่ยนกระแสและคู่เพศเดียวกันจะสามารถได้รับสิทธิตามรัฐธรรมนูญและตามหลักเรื่องคนเข้าเมืองเช่นเดียวกับคู่ต่างเพศ

To view this post in English please see: same sex marriage.

Those following this blog with any regularity may have noticed that the administration routinely posts the holiday closing schedules of the various US Missions in the Asia-Pacific region as a courtesy to travelers and those who may be seeking services at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad. The following was quoted directly from the official website of the US Embassy in Brunei Darussalam:

The U.S. Embassy will observe the following official American and Brunei holidays in the year 2011.

DATE	DAY	HOLIDAY	OBSERVANCE
Jan 17	Monday	Martin Luther King’s Birthday	American
Feb 3	Thursday	Chinese New Year	Bruneian
Feb 15	Tuesday	Prophet Muhammad’s Birthday	Bruneian
Feb 21	Monday	Presidents Day	American
Feb 23	Wednesday	Brunei National Day	Bruneian
May 30	Monday	Memorial Day	American
May 31	Tuesday	Royal Brunei Armed Forces Day	Bruneian
June 29	Wednesday	Israk Me’raj *	Bruneian
July 4	Monday	Independence Day	American
July 15	Friday	HM Sultan’s Birthday	Bruneian
Aug 1	Monday	1st Day of Ramadan*	Bruneian
Aug 17	Wednesday	Nuzul Al-Quran*	Bruneian
Aug 30	Tuesday	Hari Raya Aidilfitri*	Bruneian
Aug 31	Wednesday	Hari Raya Aidilfitri*	Bruneian
Sept 5	Monday	Labor Day	American
Oct 10	Monday	Columbus Day	American
Nov 6	Sunday	Hari Raya Aidiladaha	Bruneian
Nov 11	Friday	Veterans Day	American
Nov 24	Thursday	Thanksgiving Day	American
Dec 27	Sunday	Christmas Day	American

* Actual Holiday Subject to Sighting of the Moon

Those wishing to visit the official homepage of the US Embassy in Brunei Darussalam please click HERE.

Those seeking services which can only be provided by an American Citizen Services (ACS) Section of a US Mission abroad such as issuance of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, US Passport, or additional visa pages for a previously issued US Passport are well advised to attempt to make an appointment with ACS in advance in an effort to streamline the processing of requests.

Those seeking short term US visas such as the B-2 visa (US tourist visa), F-1 visa (US Student visa), J-1 visa (US exchange visitor visa), or B-1 visa (US business visa) are likely to see their application processed through a non-immigrant visa unit at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad. Those seeking such travel documents should note that their application will likely be scrutinized pursuant to the language of section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.

Those seeking US travel documents for foreign spouses such as the CR-1 visa or the IR-1 visa are likely to see their visa application processed at an Immigrant Visa Unit abroad after the approval of an immigration petition from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). It should be noted that for processing purposes the K-1 visa application, technically a non-immigrant US fiance visa which allows for immigrant intent, is processed in much the same way as immigrant spousal visa applications.

Those seeking visas such as the L-1 visa for intracompany transferees or the EB-5 visa for Immigrant Investors are unlikely to see their visa application processed abroad until after the approval of an immigration petition at the USCIS in the USA.