Integrity Legal

ผู้เขียนบทความนี้เห็นว่า บทความจากหน่วยบริการข่าวรอยเตอร์ซึ่งเจ้าหน้าที่พิเศษของเจเนอรัล อิเล็คทริควิจารณ์เกี่ยวกับสถานการณ์ทางเศรษฐกิจในจีนและผลกระทบต่อความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างสหรัฐอเมริกาและสาธารณรัฐประชาธิปไตยประชาชนจีนทั้งแง่เศรษฐกิจและการเมือง อ้างโดยตรงจากหน่วยบริการข่าวรอยเตอร์

(รอยเตอร์)- สำหรับ เจฟฟ์ อิมเมลท์ ซีอีโอของเจเนอรัล อิเล็คทริค (GE.N) อุตสาหกรรมยักษ์ของสหรัฐอเมริกาที่มีอายุกว่า 130 ปี วิกฤตการณ์ทางการเงินกำลังมาถึงจุดจบของวิกฤตการณ์เศรษฐกิจของสหรัฐอเมริกา

บล็อกเกอร์เห็นว่ามีบางอย่างที่เหมือนกับการมองในแง่ที่ไม่ดีของระบบเศรษฐกิจสหรัฐอเมริกา แม้ว่าปัจจุบันนี้จะก้าวสู่ความวุ่นวายทางเศรษฐกิจและเป็นอยู่ในช่วงระยะเวลาหนึ่งของระบบเศรษฐกิจสหรัฐอเมริกา ผู้เขียนเห็นว่า อเมริกายังคงเป็นประเทศที่ดีที่สุดในโลกในด้านการค้าและเศรษฐกิจ ผู้ที่ดำเนินธุรกิจในสหรัฐอเมริกาอาจจะได้รับสิทธิพิเศษทางด้านการเงิน เศรษฐกิจ และโครงสร้างทางสาธารณูปโภค หวังเป็นอย่างยิ่งว่า มุมมองของอเมริกาในอดีตคงจะไม่ทำให้ระบบเศรษฐกิจของสหรัฐอเมริกาล้มลงอีกครั้งหนึ่ง รอยเตอร์กล่าวต่อไป

แต่นาย อินเมลท์ กล่าวว่า อนาคตจะแตกต่างออกไป อีก 25 ปีข้างหน้า เขากลล่าวว่า “ผู้บริโภคชาวอเมริกัน ไม่ไดด้กลายเป็นแรงขับเคลื่อนของการเติบโตของเศรษฐกิจโลก มันจะกลายแป็นเรื่องคนหลายพันล้านที่เป็นกลุ่มชนชั้นกลางในเอเชีย มันจะกลายเป็นประเทศที่อุดมไปด้วยทรัพยากรธรรมชาติกับการค้นพบความมั่งคั่งของราคาน้ำมันที่สูงขึ้น นั่นเป็นเกม”

ผู้คนจำนวนมากเล่นเกมนี้ในจีน ในขณะนี้เมื่อมีการบังคับในสิทธิของขาวอเมริกันในการจ่ายเงินประกันของสหรัฐอเมริกา นายอินเมลท์ ผู้ที่เป็นรีพลับลิกันมาอย่างยาวนาน เป็นเรื่องราวของข้อเท็จจริงเกี่ยวกับจีนที่ปฏิเสธไม่ได้

ข้อมูลที่เป็นที่น่าสนใจตามที่บล็อกเกอร์อ้างในบทความก่อนหน้านี้ในข้อเท็จจริงที่ว่า ซีอีโอของจีอีอ้าถึงข้อเท็จจริงที่ว่า กลุ่มของชนชั้นกลางในเอเชียกำลังขยายตัวอย่างรวดเร็ว แนวความคิดที่ว่าชนชั้นกลางในเอเชียกว่า 1 พันล้านคนและมากกว่านั้นมีผลกระทบต่อการเติบโตทางเศรษฐกิจ ชาวเอเชียโดยทั่วไปกลายเป็นผู้ที่มีความมั่งคั่งจากผลกระทบที่มีแนวโน้มจะเพิ่มมากกขึ้นทางการค้าและเศรษฐกิจเนื่องจากเป็นสมาชิกใหม่ของชนชั้นกลางที่มีความมั่งคั่งโดยการจับจ่ายสินค้า บริการ (ในเออเชีย ในยุโรป ในสหราชอาณาจักร และในสหรัฐอเมริกา) เรื่องที่สะเทือนอารมณ์ของบทความจากรอยเตอร์คือ:

“กำลังจะกลายเป็นระบบเศรษฐกิจที่ใหญ่ที่สุดในโลก” นายอิมเมลท์กล่าวถึงประเทศจีน “คำถามเดียวก็คือ เมื่อไหร่”

ข้อที่น่าสังเกตประการหนึ่งคือ ประเทศจีนมีอัตราการเติบโตทางเศรษฐกิจที่สูงมากขึ้นและผู้ที่มองหาการลงทุนระหว่างประเทศหรือโอกาสทางธุรกิจนั้นควรจะค้นหาข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับตลาดในจีน อาจกล่าวได้ว่า จีนไม่ได้เป็นเพียงแค่ตัวแทนของเอเชียซึ่งมีโอกาสทางเศรษฐกิจที่รองรับสำหรับนักลงทุนและผู้ลงทุนเนื่องจากโลกาภิวัฒน์ ราชอาณาจักรไทยซึ่งเป็นหนึ่งในสมาชิกของสมาคมประชาชาติแห่งเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้ (ASEAN) ได้เปิดโอกาสการลงทุนในรูปแบบของทรัพย์สินในไทย อสังหาริมทรัพย์ในไทยและธุรกิจในไทย นอกจากนี้ สำหรับการประกอบการธุรกิจอเมริกันในไทยสามารถที่จะพิสูจน์ผลกำไรได้ตั้งแต่สนธิสัญญาพันธไมตรีไทย-อเมริกันซึ่งอนุญาตให้ชาวอเมริกันเป็นเจ้าของ 100% ในบริษัทไทยพร้อมกับการได้รับใบรับรองตามสนธิสัญญาไทย-อเมริกัน (บางครั้งเรียกว่า บริษัทตามอมิตี้)

ในขณะเดียวกัน ประเทศลาวซึ่งล้อมรอบไปด้วยแผ่นดินได้มีการเปิดตลาดหลักทรัพย์ลาวด้วยความพยายามที่จะเพิ่มทุนในการลงทุน เมื่อเร็วๆนี้ ราชอาณาจักรกัมพูชาได้ประกาศเปิดตลาดหลักทรัพย์กัมพูชาในกลางปี 2011ซึ่งรายงานว่า ทางการพม่าหวังที่จะดำเนินการเปิดตลาดหลักทรัพยเช่นกัน การพัฒนายังคงเป็นสิ่งที่ต้องตระหนักถึงแต่มีตัวอย่างที่ชี้ให้เห็นว่า จีนแผ่นดินใหญ่ไม่เพียงแค่เป็นเกมในเมืองเมื่อมีการเพิ่มโอกาสการลงทุนในเอเชียและการเจริญเติบโต

To view this information in English please see: US Company Registration.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that a State Judge in a Nebraska Court appears to have been unwilling to grant a divorce to a same-sex married couple on the grounds that the State of Nebraska does not recognize the existence of the underlying marriage. It would appear as though the parties in question were originally married in Vermont (a State which recognizes and solemnizes marriages between individuals of the same gender), but wished to have their marriage dissolved in Nebraska (a State which does not solemnize nor recognize same sex marriage). To quote directly from a posting on WCAX.com, a website dedicated to providing news pertaining to Vermont:

According to Judge Randall Rehmeier, the state can’t dissolve their marriage because gay marriage isn’t recognized by the Nebraska Constitution. That means their marriage doesn’t exist in the state’s eyes.

The administration of this blog highly recommends readers go to the website noted above to read the full posting. The Judge’s reasoning may go to the heart of the overall conundrum that arises from what some would consider to be the uncertain nature of the current legal status of same sex marriages in the United States. As noted previously on this blog, within the USA there are currently 5 sovereign American  States that recognize and perform same sex marriages. Meanwhile, there are many other States and jurisdictions which do not recognize such marital relationships. Furthermore, there are even some American States which have State constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage or defining marriage as exclusively to mean a marital union between two people of differing gender. Concurrently, the United States Federal Government does not recognize same sex marriages pursuant to the language of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). Under the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act the Federal government is legally barred from recognizing marriages between two people of the same gender. This is a significant issue in the area of United States Immigration law as same sex bi-national couples are unable to obtain the same family based visa benefits as different-sex bi-national couples, regardless of the fact that the couple may have been lawfully married in one of the American States which recognizes same sex marriage.

In the midst of all of these conflicting policies and laws there are currently cases pending in the United States Federal Courts which address the issues associated with same sex marriage and government recognition thereof. At the time of this writing, Federal District Courts in Massachusetts and California have ruled that Federal failure to recognize State sanctioned same sex marriage is unconstitutional. However, those decisions have been stayed pending appeal. Those appeals could very possibly go all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

At the time of this writing, the issue of same sex marriage is far from settled, but one thing is clear: it is unlikely that a solution will be easy to find. It is this blogger’s opinion that the issues associated with same sex marriage touch most particularly upon legal notions inherent in the Constitutional doctrine of Full Faith and Credit pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. However, analysis under the Full Faith and Credit Clause may not lead to uniform State acceptance of same sex marriage. In this blogger’s opinion, the Defense of Marriage Act was rendered unconstitutional the moment that a sovereign American State began recognizing and performing marriages for people of the same sex. This opinion is based upon the belief that the right to solemnize marriages between parties within the jurisdiction of a given State is a right reserved to said State under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under certain circumstances, States have cited their power to promote “public health and safety” as a basis for issuing marriage licenses.

In this blogger’s opinion, if a State has duly legalized a same sex marriage within their jurisdiction pursuant to the laws and procedures of said State, then the Federal government must recognize that marriage pursuant to what this blogger would describe as Vertical Full Faith and Credit (i.e. Federal recognition of certain State prerogatives regarding intrastate matters pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause). However, the law dealing with what this blogger would describe as Horizontal Full Faith and Credit (State to State recognition of State adjudicated matters) can be opaque especially with regard to issues which one state has deemed to be in violation of State public policy. If a sovereign American State has a Constitutional Amendment which specifically defines marriage as a marital union between a man and a woman, then there is a strong argument in favor of denying divorces to same sex couples within that State since it would violate State public policy to recognize the existence of the marriage in order to dissolve it.

As more and more same sex couples legalize marriages in the United States, it stands to reason that more such couples may one day seek divorce. The issues associated with Full Faith and Credit and LGBT rights have yet to be fully resolved, but it seems likely that this issue will remain controversial both from a political perspective as well as a legal perspective.

Those reading this posting should take note of the fact that there are myriad legal and political opinions on this subject and until such time as a binding decision is made in the US Courts or Federal legislature this issue will probably continue to remain unresolved.

For information about legislation designed to deal with the immigration restrictions placed upon same sex bi-national couples please see: Uniting American Families Act or UAFA.

Those who read this blog frequently may have noticed that the administration has been keeping track of the proposed extension to the so-called “Patriot Act.” It appears that there are efforts being made on Capitol Hill to streamline the passage of a bill which would extend this important Act. To quote directly from a recent article on RT.com a Russian News Source for global news:

Now that the major provisions of the Act are about to expire, the US Senate’s Judiciary Committee is in a real hurry to rubberstamp the extension of the Act rather than discuss and debate the far-reaching measures.

As the US Senator Dianne Feinstein of California put it “They expire in three weeks and I think there’s no time really to go into the changes.”

Let’s take a look at the above quotation for a moment. The Senator would appear to be saying that the bill should be passed “as is” without significant discussion due to the fact that there is “no time” for any discussion. Doesn’t this conflict with the fact that within the same quotation the Senator notes that there are three weeks left before the Patriot Act expires? How then is there “no time” to discuss the bill, when there are in fact approximately 3 weeks left to discuss the bill? This blog posting was not written to discuss the details of the Patriot Act, but instead to discuss the issue of what appears to be legislative shirking. In recent history there have been several examples of a disturbing trend within the Federal Legislature. Namely, the notion that bills coming before said legislature which have incredible ramifications for the American people and the Institutions that make up the American way of life should be “passed first and discussed later”. RT.com delves into this issue further:

There was ‘no time’ either for real debate back in 2001, when the Patriot Act was adopted weeks after the 9/11 attacks.

According to Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, the lawmakers had not even read what they were passing.

“What happened once the Patriot Act was passed, the Fourth Amendment right – to be protected from unreasonable searching was just thrown out.”

To provide clarity to the reader, Congressman Kucinich is referring to the Constitutional Rights guaranteed under the 4th amendment to the United States Constitution which, to quote from Wikipedia, states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

RT.com continues:

The Congressman was one of the very few who openly opposed the Act.

“We have a challenge to the essence of democracy with the very existence of the Patriot Act,” Denis Kucinich warns. “And of course its name – the Patriot Act – who would want to oppose the Patriot Act, because it makes it sound as though you’re a patriot if you are for it. But actually the idea of tying patriotism to the destruction of cherished constitutional privileges needs in itself to be challenged.”

This blogger does not point this out in an effort to criticize Mr. Kucinich, but strictly speaking pursuant to the plain language of the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as quoted above, the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is a RIGHT, not a privilege. Those reading this posting who would accuse this blogger of being overly interested in semantics should note that there is a substantial distinction between rights and privileges in jurisprudence. As usual, Wikipedia turns out to have the most concise synopsis of the differences between rights and privileges in layman’s terms. To quote directly from Wikipedia’s entry on the issue of rights vs. privileges:

A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.

The above digression is not intended to be a jab against Mr. Kucinich as his use of the term privilege was likely unintentional. Instead, this digression was an attempt to elucidate the importance of the distinction between rights and privileges.

To get back to the issue of the Federal Legislature’s apparent reluctance to discuss the Patriot Act extension on the basis of “time constrains” the question must be posed: what is the United States Senate’s job if it is not to discuss pending legislation? According to the website senate.gov, United States Senators are paid 174,000 USD per annum. To quote another page from senate.gov:

Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. They are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary.

The compensation of United States Senators is not really the crux of this posting, but the above cited figures are noted in an effort to show that US Senators are not uncompensated for their service to the United States of America. This begs the question: what are they compensated for? The short answer: to legislate, which includes discussing pending legislation or proposed extensions to previously enacted legislation! In many ways, the United States Senate was specifically designed to be a deliberative body which would slowly and intelligently scrutinize proposed legislation, or to quote US Senator John Kyl on senate.gov:

George Washington likened the House to hot tea, and the Senate was the “saucer” that cooled it.

Clearly, the Senate’s raison d’etre is to do exactly the opposite of what Senator Feinstein has suggested. Instead of acting as a “rubber stamp” the Senate is to be the great “scrutinizer” of proposed legislation. It should be noted that this is not the first instance in recent American history that expedience has been cited as a valid reason for railroading through legislation with little or no scrutiny. To cite just one example: the bailout legislation. To quote Representative Brad Sherman from California when discussing said legislation on the House floor:

The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. That atmosphere is not justified. Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday, that the sky would fall, the Market would drop two or three thousand points the first day-another couple thousand the second day-and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no. That’s what I call fearmongering. Unjustified. Proven wrong. We’ve got a week, we’ve got two weeks to write a good bill. The only way to pass a bad bill: keep the panic pressure on.

Clearly, Representative Sherman was not a supporter of the “legislate first, ask questions later” philosophy. That said, the financial legislation that resulted in the banking bailouts would appear to have been, at least partially, the result of high pressure tactics utilized by those hoping to see that legislation’s passage. What was the result of passing such important legislation without careful analysis? Significant amounts of money allocated as a result of the bailouts has not been accounted for and many Americans have noted their disapproval of the way in which public funds were allocated. Meanwhile, the economy continues to be turbulent. Prior to the passage of the bailout bill, expediency was one of the major themes trumpeted by those in support of the legislation’s passage. In the aftermath of the bill’s passage there are many who wonder if it might not have been better to have taken a more deliberate approach toward that legislation.

Federal legislators’ seeming lack of enthusiasm about discussing the extension of the Patriot Act comes on the heels of recent announcements that Federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation appear to have violated the civil rights of a substantial number of Americans during the last decade. To quote directly from the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s official website eff.org:

EFF has uncovered widespread violations stemming from FBI intelligence investigations from 2001 – 2008. In a report released today, EFF documents alarming trends in the Bureau’s intelligence investigation practices, suggesting that FBI intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed.

The Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001. There are some who may infer that the passage of the Patriot Act is linked to the apparent violations which have been discovered by EFF.org. Those interested in the the full story on the apparent violations allegedly perpetrated by the FBI are encouraged to check out the full story on EFF.org.

Readers should note that this blogger believes that there is room for debate on any issue which is being proposed for passage by the US Congress and that all Americans are entitled to their opinion regarding the Patriot Act, or any other law for that matter. However, failure to properly vet legislation prior to passage by the US House and Senate should be alarming to anyone no matter what the subject matter of the proposed legislation may be. The following is quoted from a recent article posted on the Voices section of the official website of the Washington Post, WashingtonPost.com:

The Sensenbrenner bill [The House's version of the proposed Patriot Act Extension Bill] is expected to easily pass the Republican-led House next week. The measure would then go on to the Senate, which will be in recess the latter part of next week. The Senate would next be able to take up the bill when it comes back during the week of Feb. 14.

Both chambers are in recess during the week of Feb. 21 for the President’s Day holiday, and by the day they come back — Feb. 28 — the provisions will have already expired.

That means that if the Senate doesn’t act on the House-passed legislation during the week of Feb. 14, the provisions would either expire or both chambers might be forced to call a pro-forma session during their President’s Day recess.

Again, the implication of this quote would seem to suggest that there is not a great deal of time to pass this legislation. In reality, at the time of this writing there are 22 days left before the expiration of the Patriot Act. If the House or Senate is required to come out of recess or forgo a vacation in order to facilitate debate or discussion on a bill that has a dramatic impact upon the rights of US Citizens wouldn’t that be a good thing? After all, isn’t that what legislators are paid to do? Again, the substance of the Patriot Act is not the main point of this article. Instead, this post is written in an attempt to point out the apparently recent habit of the US legislature to enact important legislation with little or no discussion or debate in the name of expedience.

It should be noted that President Barack Obama in conjunction with the previous Congress authorized a previous extension to the Patriot Act in February of 2010. To quote directly from the website ThatsMyCongress.com:

Yesterday, to top it off, the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization of Patriot Act provisions without any reform to them. This passage was made via voice vote, a move for secrecy so that no one could track the vote of a specific senator on the issue. The vote to make American citizens’ private lives transparent to the U.S. Government was made in a way to make American senators’ votes opaque to U.S. citizens.

The 2008 promise by Democrats to reform warrantless wiretapping, intrusive surveillance, restore constitutional protections, reject national security letters and reform the Patriot Act has not simply been forgotten. The promise has been broken.

Again, to reiterate, any piece of legislation that would allow the government to gain access to “any tangible thing” during an investigation is, by virtually anyone’s estimation, an important piece of legislation. Therefore, in extending such legislation shouldn’t there at least be discussion? One would think.

For related information please see: Patriot Act Extension.

One of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and a true Renaissance man, Benjamin Franklin was once quoted as stating, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Truer words may never have been uttered as taxation and death seem as ubiquitous now as they likely did in the 1700′s. With that in mind, this blogger has recently noticed a great many American people outside of the USA who have misconceptions regarding the current state of American law with regard to taxation of Americans resident abroad. It would appear that there are those under the mistaken impression that individuals outside of the United States are not subject to American income tax. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth pursuant to current United States tax rules.

To quote directly from the official website of the Internal Revenue Service: IRS.gov:

If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.

As can be seen from the above quotation, Americans working or earning income abroad are still subject to American taxation regardless of the fact that they are physically located outside of the jurisdictional confines of the United States of America. There are many who do not agree with the current tax policies regarding individuals resident abroad, but as the law currently stands Americans must pay taxes even on income earned outside of the USA. That said, from a practical perspective there are some benefits accorded to Americans residents abroad. To quote further from the same page of the Internal Revenue Service website:

If you reside overseas, or are in the military on duty outside the U.S., you are allowed an automatic 2-month extension to file your return until June 15. However, any tax due must be paid by the original return due date (April 15) to avoid interest charges.

Of further note to Americans resident abroad is the foreign earned income exclusion which may allow Americans resident abroad to obtain a exemption from paying taxes on earned income up to a certain specified level. To quote directly from the Internal Revenue Service’s web page regarding the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion:

If you are a U.S. citizen or a resident alien of the United States and you live abroad, you are taxed on your worldwide income. However, you may qualify to exclude from income up to an amount of your foreign earnings that is now adjusted for inflation ($91,400 for 2009, $91,500 for 2010, $92,900 for 2011). In addition, you can exclude or deduct certain foreign housing amounts.

It should be noted that “living abroad” should not be construed to mean short term periods of residence outside of the USA. In fact, one wishing to claim the aforementioned exclusion would likely be required to spend a substantial period of time outside of the USA. In fact, the IRS currently uses a Physical Presence Test in order to determine whether or not an American who has been abroad qualifies for the foreign earned income exclusion. To quote further from another page of the IRS.gov website:

You meet the physical presence test if you are physically present in a foreign country or countries 330 full days during a period of 12 consecutive months. The 330 qualifying days do not have to be consecutive. The physical presence test applies to both U.S. citizens and resident aliens.

This posting is merely intended to act as a primer for those interested in American tax issues and how United States tax rules impact Americans resident abroad. This posting should not be viewed as a complete or comprehensive analysis of an individual’s current tax situation. Those interested in obtaining advice regarding American tax matters are well advised to contact a licensed professional. At the time of this writing the Integrity Legal Network includes an American attorney licensed to practice law before the United States Tax Court.

For related information please see: Expat Tax Return.

The following is quoted directly from the official website of the United States Embassy in Manila, Philippines:

Those wishing to visit the official homepage of the United States Embassy in Manila, Philippines please click HERE.

Those seeking services which can only be performed at a US Embassy or US Consulate 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 contact an American Citizen Services Section of the nearest post with Consular jurisdiction over one’s place of abode. Those seeking assistance from an American Citizen Services Section of a US Post abroad are well advised to try to make an appointment in advance as doing so can greatly streamline the processing of one’s request.

Those seeking non-immigrant visas such as a B-2 visa (US tourist visa), B-1 visa (US business visa), J-1 visa (US exchange visitor visa), or an F-1 visa (US student visa) are likely to see their application processed by a Non-Immigrant Visa Unit at a US Post abroad. It should be noted that those seeking most non-immigrant visa categories are likely to have their application scrutinized pursuant to section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.

Those seeking Immigrant visas such as the CR-1 visa or the IR-1 visa may be required to process an immigration petition in the USA prior to applying for a visa abroad. Those seeking a K-1 visa, a non-immigrant US fiance visa, will likely see their visa application processed in much the same manner as the immigrant visa categories.

Those seeking employment visas such as the L-1 visa for intra-company transferees or the EB-5 visa for immigrant investors will most likely be required to process an immigration petition in the USA prior to submitting a visa application at a US Post abroad.

While online this blogger came across an interesting article regarding same sex marriage in the United States of America and the campaign to equalize marital rights for same sex couples. It would appear that Ms. Barbara Bush (no, not the former First Lady, but her granddaughter) has come out in favor of marriage equality. To quote directly from an article written by Candace Chellew-Hodge posted on the website religiondispatches.org:

First, it was Arizona Senator John McCain’s daughter Meghan who came out as a young Republican in full support of marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Now, the youngest daughter of former President George W. Bush is—like her mother Laura before her—publicly proclaiming her support for marriage equality. In a video released this week by the Human Rights Campaign, Barbara Bush, proclaims herself “a New Yorker for marriage equality.”

It is interesting to note that the issue of marriage equality does not seem to conjure up the same sort of reaction from members of different generations. Where at one time, the issue of same sex marriage and LGBT rights were once quite controversial, especially within the Republican Party, now it would appear that more cooler heads are prevailing on the subject as even religious people who have personal issues with the practice understand that personal liberty and the right to be with people that one loves are fundamental to both the human experience and the American Dream. However, not everyone feels the same way as a further quote from the aforementioned website points out:

Over at Focus on the Family’s Citizen Link, blogger Jenny Tyree isn’t surprised at Ms. Bush and Ms. McCain’s support for marriage equality. “It’s rather easy for 20-somethings—or millennials—to jump on the very tidy-looking ‘rights’ bandwagon that proponents of same-sex marriage have made marriage to be,’ she writes, rightly observing that the majority of people aged 18-29 support marriage equality.

Those reading this posting are well advised to go to religiondispatches.org to read the story in its entirety. That said, first, it should be noted that this blogger, a twenty-something, albeit a late twenty-something, himself, hates the use of the term “Millennials” when describing the generation of Americans coming of age in the new millennium. The reason for the dislike of this label stems more from the fact that it makes such people sound like flowers which bloom on a yearly basis rather than a smart savvy generation who can clearly articulate their opinions on a wide array of issues, but this is a digression.

Of interest to those seeking information regarding United States Immigration law is the fact that under the current legal framework of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) the Federal government refuses to recognize the validity of same sex marriage notwithstanding the fact that 5 Sovereign US States currently recognize and solemnize such unions. There are many who would argue that this legislation is unconstitutional on its face as it completely abrogates the States’ prerogatives with regard to marriages conducted within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is this blogger’s opinion that this current practice violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution as well as depriving individuals of their right to equal protection under the US Constitution and the rights conferred under the theory of “substantive due process.” In an immigration context, there have been moves in the US Congress to deal with the issue of same sex bi-national couples. Most notable have been Representative Jerrold Nadler’s attempts to gain passage of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would create a US Visa category for “permanent partners” of United States Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. As of the time of this writing, this legislation has yet to be passed.

Under the government’s view of the law, bi-national same sex couples are not allowed to obtain US family visa benefits equal to those of their different-sex counterparts as doing so would be a violation of DOMA. Hopefully, with the support of a new generation of Americans these issues will be rectified and same sex couples will be afforded the same Constitutional liberties and immigration benefits as their different-sex counterparts.

Fore related information please see: Permanent Partner Visas.

While surfing the World Wide Web, this blogger came across an interesting piece on the Diplopundit blog pertaining to the United States Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. The administration of this blog highly recommends that readers go to the Diplopundit blog to read the entry in its entirety. That said, the following was quoted directly from the aforementioned blog:

We understand that Bangkok’s FY 2009 NIV workload declined by over 20,000 cases from its FY 2008 high. The IV workload also declined from a FY 2006 high of approximately 8,500 to fewer than 3,000 cases in FY 2009. Still — we feel bad for the ELOs [English Language Officers] — no counseling, late performance reviews and a rotation program that spans 3-4 months — are not/not great introductions to a new career.

There is obviously a leadership disconnect here. The CG meets with the officers regularly but the Visa Chief reportedly does not, and neither were “regular participants in [visa] line work.” Ever wonder how this translates to — lead by example? Or building great teams?

The above quotation seems to drip with a certain level of sarcasm while maintaining a genuine concern for efficiency at American Missions abroad. That stated, this blogger cannot comment upon the caseload, processing policies, or personnel issues at the US Embassy in Bangkok due to a general lack of personal knowledge regarding the overall staffing situation at the Post. However, this blogger can state from personal experience that the officers at the US Embassy Thailand really did “go above and beyond” during the year 2010.

The Kingdom of Thailand saw a great deal of political, economic, and social turbulence in 2010. Most notable for those interested in matters pertaining to the US Embassy was the fact that the Post was closed for a number of days due to the riots in the late spring and early summer in Bangkok, Thailand. The so-called “Red Shirts” mounted a protest which eventually lead to a government crackdown, but not before causing major disruptions in the Bangkok Metropolitan area. The reason this riot is pertinent to this posting is the fact that this blogger personally saw, on more than one occasion, Consular Officers, of virtually every level, at the US Embassy in Bangkok going out of their way to assist and provide services to people leading right up to the actual crackdown (the same could also be said for the USCIS office in Bangkok, but that is a digression from the point of this posting).

In many ways, the situation in Bangkok could have been detrimental to the health and safety of the Consular Officers at the Post, but said employees continued to diligently perform their duties nonetheless. Although none of this goes precisely to the heart of the issues discussed in the Diplopundit blog posting this blogger felt that it should be noted in order to provide a human, if somewhat intangible, perspective on the situation in Bangkok over the past year. Perhaps this blogger is being “soft,” but it is simply the opinion of this blogger that credit ought to be given where it is due.

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

In recent days this blogger has been reading a great deal about both the proposed extension of the USA PATRIOT ACT and the proposed “Internet Kill Switch” which would allow Federal authorities to unilaterally shut down the internet services in much the same way that Egyptian authorities have restricted the access to internet services in Egypt. The first issue is the extension of the Patriot Act. Notwithstanding what appears to be broad popular support calling for the repeal or “sunsetting” of the Patriot Act, lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to push for a further extension of this questionably Constitutional piece of legislation. To quote directly from a piece on the RawStory.com website:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced legislation to the Senate Wednesday that would extend expiring provisions of the controversial PATRIOT Act.

“Congress now faces a deadline to take action on the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act,” Sen. Leahy said in a statement. “The USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 will preserve law enforcement and intelligence techniques that are set to expire on February 28, 2011, and extend them to December 2013.”

The legislation, titled “The USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011,” would extend the roving wiretap provisions, the “lone wolf” measure and the “library records” provision. The provisions allow authorities to conduct surveillance without identifying the person or location to be wiretapped, permits surveillance of “non-US” persons who are not affiliated with a terrorist group, and lets the government gain access to “any tangible thing” during investigations, respectively.

Roving wire taps, library records surveillance, access to “any tangible thing” during an investigation, the question must be posed: is this really what is best for the United States of America? The USA was founded upon principles which run completely counter to all of these notions. Furthermore, vague definitions in bills such as the Patriot Act (eg. “any tangible thing”) makes this blogger think back to a time in the United Kingdom when blank warrants were utilized as a circumvention by authorities to search people without probable cause. Again, those who follow United States politics and policy with any kind of regularity must have noticed what appears to be a movement toward a more authoritarian regime in Washington D.C. Why do the American people need to continue to be placed under a regime of such heavy surveillance and scrutiny with no definitive end? Yes, there are threats in the world today, but it has always been America’s ability to remain free in spite of war, terrorism, and general unrest that, if anything, once made the American people “exceptional”. In much the same way that the British pride their “stiff upper lip” so too did Americans once prize their self-reliance and liberty. Why are these principles being undermined by the very lawmakers who have sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution?

Meanwhile, as the Patriot Act extension awaits Congressional approval, it appears that a bill may be proposed which would give Federal authorities the ability to unilaterally shut down the internet and thereby deprive the citizenry of free access to open source information the likes of which can sometimes only be found online. To quote directly from a recent piece on the website DailyMail.co.uk:

While the Egyptian government has drawn international criticism for shutting down internet and mobile phone access during civil unrest, it might alarm many Americans to learn that Barack Obama may soon have the same powers.

Lawmakers are set to debate a controversial new plan to give the President the power to shut down the Internet in case of a cyber emergency.

The proposal is certain to meet opposition, but Senator Susan Collins, the co-sponsor of the bill, insisted today that the legislation would not be used for censorship.

This bill, referred to currently as the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 has yet to be voted upon by the American legislature. Thus far, this blogger has yet to find any concrete definition of what would constitute a “cyber emergency”. According to OpenCongress.org the bill:

Creates the Office of Cyberspace Policy and National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications to set standards and coordinate cybersecurity efforts within the government. Gives the NCCC broad powers over “critical infrastructure” in the case of a “national cyber emergency” (as declared by the President).

There would seem to be a great deal of controversy surrounding this bill which may be most concisely summed up by quoting from an excerpt in Wikipedia.org‘s entry on the subject:

Senator Lieberman [The Senator who proposed the legislation] has been criticized for giving the President the power to use a “kill switch” which would shut off the Internet. He has called these accusations “total misinformation” and said that “the government should never take over the Internet”.^[3] Lieberman further inflamed skeptics when he cited China’s similar policy in a backfired attempt to show the policy’s normalcy.^[4] However, the bill would allow the President to enact “emergency measures” in the case of a large scale cyber attack.^[2] The original bill granted the US President the authority to shut down part of the internet indefinitely, but in a later amendment the maximum time for which the President could control the network was reduced to 120 days. After this period, the networks will have to be brought up, unless Congress approves an extension.

The question must be posed: is the controversy surrounding this bill legitimate or simply “misinformation”? Clearly under such a scheme, as stated above, the President would have some sort of “Emergency Powers” over the internet pursuant to the language of this bill. What is most ominous to this blogger is the notion that abridgment of freedom (both online and in the real world) is okay so long as it only occurs in 120 day spurts. Furthermore, at first blush, the provisions regarding restriction and Congressional extension would seem to mitigate the rather broad powers being granted to the President and the Federal government, but, in this blogger’s opinion, these measures are chimerical as can be seen by the Congressional actions which have consistently resulted in extension of the Patriot Act (a bill which also had sunset provisions, but provided Congress with the ability to make extensions). Does the American Constitution and Bill of Rights not clearly state that those enumerated powers not expressly granted to the Federal government are to remain with the States and the People respectively? If so, then why has the Federal government continued to usurp, or in the case of the “kill switch,” attempted to usurp; State and individual rights to liberty and the free access to information? In fact, it would seem that this bill is expressly intended to obstruct the free flow of information during a time of crisis, which some would argue, is the exact time when people would need such information the most. Perhaps the reasoning behind this bill cannot be fully discussed within the confines of this blog post, but readers can still ponder these questions while researching these issues.

Finally, the most noticeable aspect of both of these seemingly unrelated pieces of legislation is the use of the idea “Congressional Extensions” to act as a salve to those initially opposed to passage of such legislation. The notion that dramatic abridgment of liberty is permissible so long as Congress has to continually re-adjudicate the extension of such abridgment is simply ridiculous. In fact, such a statutory scheme would seem to simply make Congress a periodic accomplice to the abrogation of American State Sovereignty and individual personal freedoms. The Patriot Act has continued to be extended long after the date upon which it was originally supposed to expire and these extensions were permitted by a Democratic Congress. Bear in mind that a Republican President and Congress promulgated the PATRIOT ACT in the first place. Clearly, the notions of personal liberty and freedom of access to information are issues which transcend political party. As Congress continues to pass more questionably Constitutional legislation it is the job of the American people make informed decisions regarding whom they elect to office and it may also be incumbent upon Americans to understand their rights and understand the myriad ways in which such rights can be infringed by the Federal authorities.

For related information please see: 5 Worst Laws in American History.

In recent postings on this web log the administration has posted news and information pertaining to the ongoing situation in the Southeast Asian nation of Myanmar (also referred to as Burma). In a recent report, it was noted that the Burmese government was discussing the idea of setting up a stock exchange. Meanwhile, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has informally called for an end to the American (as well as international) sanctions being imposed upon Myanmar. To quote directly from a recent posting on the Voice of America’s official website:

The United States is among a handful of countries that have imposed targeted economic sanctions on those most responsible for denying democracy and disregarding human rights in Burma. As the time approaches for the parliaments to convene, some of Burma’s neighbors have called on the West to lift sanctions. They say U.S. policy hampers important areas of trade, prevents investment and technology from helping to develop Burma’s hard-pressed ethnic regions, and hurts the Burmese people.

The United States is deeply concerned about the plight of ordinary citizens of Burma. But it is the regime that is responsible for the country’s dire economic situation. The record is clear on how the military regime has mismanaged the economy, institutionalized corruption and plundered valuable national resources for private gain.

Our two nations have been in talks about improving relations since 2009 and we will continue to engage the government on our mutual concerns. Until the government undertakes fundamental change in Burma, including releasing the more than 2,100 political prisoners and beginning a meaningful and time-bound dialogue with the democratic opposition and ethnic minorities, U.S. sanctions will remain in place.

The issue of Human Rights in Burma is not intended to be the topic of this posting as this blogger sincerely does not feel qualified to address such issues. Exploitation, murder, and human rights abuses in Burma (Myanmar) are all issues which should concern anyone living in modern times, but there is a rather strong argument in favor of lifting sanctions such as these as there are those who would argue that these sanctions fail in their objective and may actually worsen the plight of the common people who are sometimes more adversely impacted by such measures than are those at whom the sanctions were originally aimed. In a piece written on this issue by Leon T. Hadar entitled U.S. Sanctions Against Burma: A Failure on All Fronts these issues were more eloquently elaborated:

The U.S. policy of imposing unilateral trade and investment sanctions against Burma has proven to be a failure on all fronts. By forcing U.S. firms to disengage from Burma, that policy has harmed American economic interests and done nothing to improve the living conditions or human rights of the people of Burma.

Sanctions have denied Burmese citizens the benefits of increased investment by American multinational companies–investment that brings technoloygy, better working conditions, and Western ideas.[sic]

State and local sanctions against Burma have compounded the problem caused by federal sanctions and raised troubling constitutional questions.

Unilateral sanctions have alienated our allies in the region and strengthened the hand of China but achieved none of the stated foreign policy aims. If Washington had allowed the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to take the lead in setting policy toward Burma, the United States could have enjoyed a “win-win” situation–better relations with our allies and more influence over the regime in Rangoon.

As an alternative to the failed policy of sanctions, the United States should allow U.S. companies to freely trade with and investment in Burma. A pro-business approach to engagement would more effectively promote political, civil, and economic freedom around the world. Congress should enact legislation requiring a full accounting of the cost of sanctions and explicit justification on national security grounds before they can be imposed.

It has always been this blogger’s personal opinion that the Burmese sanctions were neither well promulgated nor well executed as the imposition of sanctions has resulted in a situation in which the people at the lowest echelons of Burmese society are not able to enjoy the technological and monetary benefits that come with increased investment and the increased economic activity springing therefrom. The policy reasons underlying the sanctions against Burma would seem to originate in a belief that such sanctions will result in better conditions for the dispossessed currently living in Burma. Although this is pure speculation, it would seem that there is at least some room for reasonable people to disagree about the effects of the Burmese sanctions. Hopefully increased dialogue on this issue will result in new strategies which can be implemented to the benefit of the Burmese people and those seeking investment opportunities in Southeast Asia.

For related information please see: US Visa Myanmar.

เป็นเรื่องที่อยู่ในความสนใจของบล็อกเกอร์ โดยทางสื่อสิ่งพิมพ์ในกรุงเทพฯ ประเทศไทยซึ่งสมาคมประชาชาติแห่งเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้ (ASEAN)กับองค์กรอื่นๆและคณะบุคคลอื่นๆเรียกร้องที่จะให้มีบทลงโทษทางเศรษฐกิจต่อสหภาพพม่า (บางครั้งเรียกว่า พม่า) ในขณะที่มีการค้นคว้าในโลกออนไลน์ตามเรื่องที่อ้างต่อไปนี้ทางเว็บไซต์ Rttnews.com

การประชุมอย่างไม่เป็นทางการของรัฐมนตรีต่างประเทศของสมาคมประชาชาติเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้ (ASEAN) เรียกร้องในการให้มีบทลงโทษทางเศรษฐกิจต่อรัฐบาลทหารของพม่า

การประชุมนี้จัดขึ้นในเกาะลัมบอกของอินโดนีเซียมีการเรียกร้องโดยอ้างถึงความก้าวหน้าทางการเมืองที่สำคัญของกลุ่มประเทศในอาเซียน เอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้

รัฐมนตรีว่าการกระทรวงการต่างประเทศ มาร์ตี้ นาทาลีกาวาผู้ที่เป็นประเมศที่มีการสับเปลี่ยนตำแหน่งขององค์กรที่มีสมาชิกอยู่สิบประเทศกล่าวกับผู้สื่อข่าวว่า “พวกเราเชื่อว่า  การพัฒนาเมื่อเร็วๆนี้ต้องการที่จะได้รับการตอบรับจากสังคมนานาชาติ โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งเพื่อที่จะเป็นหลักประกันความมั่นใจว่า การพัฒนาเศรษฐกิจในเมียนมาร์สามารถที่จะเกิดขึ้นได้”

เขากล่าวว่า รัฐมนตรีของอาเซียนรู้สึกถึงการรอคอยการเลือกตั้งที่ยาวนานซึ่งเขาอธิบายถึง ซึ่งอธิบายถึง การเป็นตัวนำและความโปร่งใสของการปล่อยตัวผู้นำฝ่ายค้าน อองซาน ซูจีซึ่งได้รับการตอบรับที่ดีจากนานาชาติ

การเพิ่มมาตรการการลงโทษยังคงเป็นที่สังเกตได้ แต่ในช่วงของการประกาศจากอาเซียน เว็บไซต์อย่างเป็นทางการของ Straits Times รายงานว่า เจ้าหน้าที่รัฐในเมียนมาร์กำลังเริ่มที่จะเปิดตลาดหลักทรัพย์ในเมียนมาร์ อ้างโดยตรงจากเว็บไซต์ StraitsTimes.com:

กรุงเทพ-เมียนมาร์ในระหว่างการจัดการหลักทรัพย์ในเกาหลีใต้เกี่ยวกับการเปิดตลาดหลักทรัพย์ ขั้นตอนล่าสุดโดยการออกกฎของรัฐบาลทหารซึ่งมีจุดมุ่งหมายในการนำเงินลงทุนในต่างประเทศเข้ามาในประเทศ

การแลกเปลี่ยนหลักทรัพย์ในเกาหลีใต้มีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องกับการเปลิดตลาดการแลกเปลี่ยนหลักทรัพย์ในลาวและในการเปิดตลาดหุ้นที่ยาวนานในกัมพูชาซึ่งจะเปิดในเดือนกรกฎาคม ทั้งสองนั้นเป็นผู้ร่วมลงทุนกับรัฐบาล

ในบล็อกก่อนหน้านี้ ผู้เขียนได้พูดถึงการเปิดตลาดหลักทรัพย์ในลาวและการประกาศที่จะเปิดตลาดหลักทรัพย์ในกัมพูชาซึ่งจะเปิดในกลางปี 2011 ในกรณีของเมียนมาร์ เป็นที่ปรากฏอย่างชัดเจนว่า แผนงานต่างๆของการเปิดตลาดหลักทรัพย์ในเมียนมาร์ยังคงเป็นเรื่องที่ยังไม่แน่นอนตามที่มีการอ้างถึงในการเขียนใน Stratis Times

โฆษกของตลาดหลักทรัพย์ในกรุงโซลรายงานว่า ตัวแทนได้เยือนพม่าสองครั้ง “แต่ยังคงไม่มีการตัดสินใจใดๆเกิดขึ้น” เจ้าหน้าที่กล่าว

แม้ว่าการเปิดตลาดหลักทรัพย์ในพม่าไม่ได้เป็นบทสรุปที่แน่นอนแล้ว แต่ยังคงมีคนจำนวนมากที่อ้างถึงผลประโยชน์ทางเศรษฐกิจซึ่งจะทำให้ทำให้เกิดผลประโยชน์ที่มากขึ้น นอกจากนี้ ยังมีผู้ที่โต้แย้งถึงโอกาสทางเศรษฐกิจในเมียนมาร์ซึ่งจะก่อให้เกิดผลดีต่อเมียนมาร์บนพื้นฐานของหลักที่ว่า น้ำขึ้นให้รีบตัก อ้างเพิ่มเติมจาก Straits Times

เมียนมาร์เป็นประเทศที่อุดุมไปด้วยทรัพยากรธรรมชาติแต่การพัฒนายังคงล้าหลังอยู่เกือบห้าสิบปีของการขาดการบริหารทางเศรษฐกิจภายใต้การปกครองของรัฐบาลทหารและบทลงโทษของตะวันตก

แต่การปฏิรูปภายใต้แนวทางนั้น เจ้าหน้าที่รัฐมีการเปลี่ยนแปลงทรัพย์สินของรัฐในปีที่แล้วและค้นหาวิธีที่จะสั่งห้ามเรื่องเกี่ยวกับกษัตริย์ การติดต่อสื่อสาร การขนส่งทางเรือ และภาคเกษตรกรรม-รอยเตอร์

เมียนมาร์เป็นแหล่งของทรัพยากรธรรมชาติที่อุดมสมบูรณ์และโอกาสทางเศรษฐกิจ แต่ในเวลาที่เขียนบทความนี้หลายๆชาติ เช่นสหรัฐอเมริกา มีบทลงโทษต่อชาติในเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้ซึ่งห้ามการจัดกิจกรรมทางการค้า มีบางอย่างที่ถกเถียงกันว่า บทลงโทษที่รุนแรงนั้นจะทำให้ประชากรชาวพม่ามีชีวิตที่แร้นแค้นขึ้น แต่การโต้แย้งนั้นเป็นสมมติฐานทั่วไปในการลบล้างข้อบังคับทางการค้าของต่างชาติ และผลประโยชน์ทางเศรษฐกิจซึ่งมีแนวโน้มที่จะเพิ่มขึ้นจากต่างชาติอาจจะทำให้ได้รับประโยชน์จากปัจจัยต่างๆในตลาดในเมียนมาร์ประเทศที่ประชากรยังคงยากจนอยู่ ภายใต้ทฤษฎี ผลประโยชน์ทางเศรษฐกิจอาจจะไม่เป็นเรื่องที่สำคัญกับชนชั้นที่สูงขึ้นที่อยู่ในเมียนมาร์ เนื่องจากผู้ที่มั่งคั่งจำนวนน้อยมีแนวโน้มที่จะได้รับสิทธิประโยชน์ แม้ว่าจะโดยทางอ้อมจากการเพิ่มทุนของต่างชาติ สินค้าที่ส่งออก ทรัพย์สินทางปัญญาและกิจกรรมทางเศรษฐกิจอื่นๆ

แม้ว่าการแลกเปลี่ยนหลักทรัพย์ในเมียนมาร์อาจจะยังคงอยู่ท่ามกลางการถกเถียงกันและยังคงไกลจากความเป็นจริง ผู้ที่สนใจที่จะทำธุรกิจในเมียนมาร์ หรือปะเทศอื่นๆในเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้ควรที่จะทำความเข้าใจกับข้อมูลต่างๆข้างต้นที่มีหลายประเทศโต้แย้งเกี่ยวกับว่า เมียนมาร์มีแนวโน้มที่จะมีบทบาทที่สำคัญในภูมิภาคและเศรษฐกิจโลกเช่นเดียวกับการค้า

To view this information in English please see: US Visa Myanmar.