India to take US visas complaint to WTO

[alp227]

Last edited Tue Apr 10, 2012, 08:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Financial Times

India is going to launch a complaint against the US at the World Trade Organisation over the rising cost of work visas, which it described as “highly discriminatory” and damaging to its flagship IT outsourcing industry, an official said.

New Delhi has repeatedly tried to convince the US to roll back the 2010 laws increasing the fee for H1B and L-1 visas, commonly used by its IT companies to bring talent into the US, but has been unable to reach an amicable solution, according to Rahul Khullar, India’s trade secretary.

Read more: http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d477c0a6-830e-11e1-929f-00144feab49a.html

[LiberalEsto]

1. boo hoo

They want to force the U.S. to bring their workers here so they can take away jobs from American citizens.

Can you imagine the reaction if we wanted them to bring in Americans to take their jobs?

[Javaman]

2. Oh naive India. Who do they think controls the WTO? nt

[TheFarseer]

38. corporations that want the cheap labor

right?

[Javaman]

39. U.S. corporations. nt

[leveymg]

3. That link goes to Wayback Machine. Please fix the link or delete this post.

[leveymg]

4. Here's a better link

http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d477c0a6-830e-11e1-929f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1rg9yG1xj

[dipsydoodle]

8. Ta for that

not the posters mistake : there are frequently issues with freedom of use with FT links.

[alp227]

14. Fixed.

Thing is that FT.com links work only thru liveweb.archive.org otherwise links hit paywall.

[leveymg]

18. Thanks

[Daniel537]

5. Hmm, maybe i'm complety off base on this one

but last i checked we're still a sovereign nation and can set visa fees at whatever the hell we want, or even cancel the damn things if we so desire.

[msongs]

9. your president and congress are selling out your sovereignty rights all over the place. What

do you think all those "trade" agreements are primarily about?

[pampango]

12. All international agreements are bad or just trade agreements?

Should the US never sign an agreement with another country if it binds us to act a certain way or avoid certain actions (thus losing some "sovereignty&quot because the US should always retain the right to do whatever we want?

[Daniel537]

21. Why shouldn't we retain the right to do what we want?

The idea that an international trade organization could try to compel us to hand out visas to whomever wants them is ludicrous. Basic sovereignty 101.

[pampango]

24. Perhaps we should, but FDR believed that international organizations like the WTO (GATT), the UN

and many others (all his creations) were good for global peace and prosperity. The liberal view then was that our actions affect other countries and their actions affect us so each sacrificing some degree of "sovereignty" was better for all.

No country, in their view, has "the right to do what we want" since their actions affect others. Similarly I don't have "the right to do what" I want because my actions may affect others. I don't think that the most ardent believers in limited government believe that individuals should have the right to "do what they want".

The WTO isn't going to make us do anything that we didn't give it the power to do. At some point the US and most other countries in the world decided that giving up a some "sovereignty" was worth the benefits of belonging to a particular international organization. The US can always withdraw from the WTO (or the UN or NAFTA or not join any future international climate change organization, etc.) if we so desire.

Indeed that might be one of those few "bipartisan" issues that has a chance. Many on the right would love to do just that. Ron Paul wants out of the WTO and NAFTA and the UN. The John Birch Society and other libertarian groups want the US out of the UN, free trade agreements and the WTO.

Teabaggers (and republicans in general), though not the politicians they elect, have a more negative view of the WTO and NAFTA than Democrats or Independents.



It would seem that there may be some common ground on the left and right to accomplish what you want, so that the US can do whatever it wants in the future.

[OrwellwasRight]

26. WTO very different from the GATT; ditto for the UN.

Your analysis is oversimplistic. The UN is a place to raise disputes and address them before resorting to violence, but it does not give profit-seeking motives final say on a country's internal laws. The WTO is the opposite. It tells a country that it must treat trade at all costs as its highest policy motive. And if it enacts a law to the contrary, then it will have to repeal or amend the law or face a fine. To wit: the US "dolphin safe tuna" regime. To wit: the US "turtle safe shrimp" regime. To wit: Belgium's returnable and reusable bottle scheme. To wit: US ban on clove cigarettes. To wit: EU ban on GMO foods.

To simply imply that FDR would have approved the WTO because he supported the creation of the GATT (which didn't even exist until after his death) is a stretch.

And to imply that only Tea Parties have problems with today's globalized trading regime, with its NAFTA Chapter 11, its anti-regulatory bias, its ability to punish commercial violations, but lack of ability punish labor and enviro violations in the same way, is a bridge too far.

Do some reading up and find out just how far our public interest legislation is threatened by the WTO and our FTAs.

[pampango]

27. I did not say that "only Tea Parties have problems with today's globalized trading regime".

The poll I posted clearly shows that many (though not most) Democrats oppose it as well. Tea parties are just the one category that opposes it overwhelmingly; Democrats the only group that supports it; with republicans and independents falling in the middle. Indeed I posted "It would seem that there may be some common ground on the left and right to accomplish what you want...". The term "common ground" would indicate that I realize that opposition to the WTO, NAFTA, et. al. is not solely a tea party phenomenon.

Actually the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference (held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in July, 1944) occurred while FDR was very much alive. "The conference was held from 1-22 July 1944, when the agreements were signed to set up the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)."

"The seminal idea behind the Bretton Woods Conference was the notion of open markets. ... The second idea behind the Bretton Woods Conference was joint management of the Western political-economic order, meaning that the foremost industrial democratic nations must lower barriers to trade and the movement of capital, in addition to their responsibility to govern the system."

If you are of the opinion that FDR did not support open international markets, multilateral management of the global economy and lower barriers to trade (when the US held all of the economic cards at the time of the conference and FDR was the president), I would be interested to hear your interpretation.

"The Conference also proposed the creation of an International Trade Organization (ITO) to establish rules and regulations for international trade. ... The ITO charter was agreed on at the U.N. Conference on Trade and Employment (held in Havana, Cuba, in March 1948), but the charter was not ratified by the U.S. Senate (controlled by Republicans at that point). ... The GATT principles and agreements were adopted by the WTO, which was charged with administering and extending them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monetary_and_Financial_Conference

[OrwellwasRight]

40. FDR was dead by the time the GATT came into existence (1947)

and the date you give for the non-existent ITO (1948) is later than that. I am sure you are aware that FDR died in 1945. so any speculation that he would have agreed to the exact rules that were actually set up for either organization is just that: sheer speculation.

I never said FDR did not support the existence of open international markets. However, like everything in life, the devil is in the details. "Free markets" are great. Markets in which global corporations write the rules and game developing nations as to which can provide the lowest wages, weakest environmental laws, least labor rights, and greatest tax rebates is not. The GATT did not set up a system in which corporate power started writing the rules on global consumer regulations, foreign investor rights, and intellectual property, but the WTO did. Any statement that Democrats in general or FDR in particular supports such a system is pure speculation. Simply put, the GATT and the WTO are not the same thing. The WTO is a revolution in neoliberal hegemony, and does not promote "free trade." It promotes corporate power.

And I see you strategically overlooked my point about how the UN is different in structure than the WTO. The UN is a place to meet and discuss. It does not have enforcement power in many cases--it uses moral suasion. The WTO is the opposite: WTO panels can and do declare domestic laws such as labeling regimes on dolphin safe tuna illegal -- and countries will have a choice to change their laws or pay higher tariffs as penalties. How Americans choose to label their tuna is a domestic issue, and no commercial tuna interests should be able to tell Americans how we can and cannot label our tuna. To claim that FDR supported such nonsense is a bridge too far.

And you need to get over yourself on saying Dems support US trade policy. Depends on the survey and the day:

http://www.pollingreport.com/trade.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/obama-free-trade-agreements_b_1008113.html

http://www.citizen.org/documents/polling-memo-july-2011.pdf

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/10/21/obama-doesnt-want-democrats-to-notice-freetrade/

http://www.pacepeo.com/in-both-parties-a-schism-on-trade

The fact is, Democrats oppose trade agreements that offshore jobs much more strongly than Republicans. You can keep spouting econ 101, David Ricardo platitudes about the benefits of "free trade," but the fact is that Ricardo's model was never built on the real world, and its assumptions certainly don't hold in a world in which capital is more mobile than labor and it moves across oceans seeking cheap labor and low regulations. So long as Democrats keeping schilling for global corporations by letting them write the rules on trade deals and then pushing those deals into law, the US will keep having its manufacturing move overseas, its wages suppressed, and its regulations challenges by foreign corporate interests.

[pampango]

45. Of course, we will never know whether FDR would have supported the actual GATT or WTO, we only know

that he opposed the high tariffs that republicans had enacted in the 1920's and 1930 and lowered them during his administration. He also favored multilateral management of global trade thinking this lessened the likelihood of the return of the bilateral tariff wars that followed republican tariffs.

How far his commitment to multilateralism (UN, GATT, IMF, etc.) would have gone is, as you rightly say, sheer speculation. He was willing to sacrifice some 'national sovereignty' for what he perceived to be a better way to pursue peace and prosperity, but how far he would have gone down this road is anybody's guess.

I didn't mean to overlook your point about the difference between the UN and the WTO. The UN is "a place to meet and discuss". It is essentially an international debating society with some limited powers beyond just talk when the 5 big powers on the Security Council can agree on anything. That is fine (though even a fairly weak UN is an anathema to many on the far-right due to their perception of cost to our sovereignty).

As you point out GATT/WTO is fundamentally different from this. I agree with you on their fundamentally different structures. I don't believe that international organizations should never be given enforcement powers. If we are ever going to effectively deal with global climate change (of which I am not particularly hopeful), I believe that an international body with enforcement power will be required. That will require the sacrifice of 'national sovereignty' by every country because the body will have the power to penalize violators of any binding climate agreement. The alternative would be a non-binding climate agreement with no teeth that would probably do little for our climate.

Your links seem to me to show that Democratic politicians are more opposed to the WTO and trade agreements than republican politicians and that there is bipartisan and widespread popular opposition to trade (particularly to the structures that govern it). You'll get no argument from me on that.

My point was that among the public at large (not the politicians), a vast majority of self-identified teabaggers oppose WTO/trade agreements by a large margin, a majority of republicans oppose them by almost as much as does a plurality of independents. Democrats were the only group in which even a plurality views trade as a positive for the US. This poll was in 2010 and Democratic support for trade was falling then. By now this Democratic support may well have reversed and Democrats may have joined the other groups in viewing WTO/trade agreements as a negative but I doubt that their poll numbers would look as strongly negative as republicans/teabaggers already showed in 2010.

[saras]

10. You are completely off base. You don't understand the nature of the WTO or other treaties

They override national, state, and local law, AND they have provisions to force changes in incompatible laws. It wouldn't be the first law voided by a free trade treaty, by any means.

[JDPriestly]

11. I don't believe that free trade requires one country to give visas to the citizens of another

country. The right to give or refuse visas is so basic to sovereignty that no nation could give it up and continue to claim to be an independent country.

[leveymg]

19. Must not block access to service providers under WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)

Last edited Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:33 AM - Edit history (1)

which President Clinton and the Senate signed in 1995.

Withholding employment-based visas to protect domestic labor markets is a direct violation of GATS, a forbidden practice that is termed "Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade." The US, along with most countries, has lodged a list of "reservations" to full enactment of the treaty as part of its accession to GATS, including some restrictions on the terms of work visas that can be issued. But, visa restrictions may not go outside that stated list, and if they do, may be challenged by other Treaty signatories under WTO rules - which is what has reportedly just happened.

[JDPriestly]

33. Then we should leave that agreement.

We have to have the right to shut out foreign labor when we have high unemployment.

Part of the duty of a government is to defend the interests of its citizens. Jobs are a big interest. You can't live without a job in the US.

So that part of "free trade" has to go especially since I assure you that getting a visa to work in another country is not all that easy for an American.

[leveymg]

35. The US created GATS, and it's still US-based corps that benefit from it.

Last edited Thu Apr 12, 2012, 02:07 PM - Edit history (1)

The major beneficiaries of GATS are big financial, accounting, legal, architectural and engineering services firms that have their global headquarters in the U.S. If the US closes its doors to protect part of its markets, they will have the doors shut on them around the world.

The end result would that many of these firms would relocate abroad, with a further loss of US jobs. This is probably not the consequence any of us desire.

I agree that there needs to be a reengineering of overall trade, economic and industrial policy in the US, but I don't think that simply abrogating the WTO GATT and GATS is necessarily the place to start.

[JDPriestly]

36. Those agreements were foisted on us by the Ford, Rockefeller, etc.

elites. They are based on 19th century thought about rich and poor and were created not by ordinary people but by the very rich.

Horrible concepts underlie them.

[leveymg]

37. Major restructuring needed. But, trade policy has a consensus of both Parties, the banks, MSM,

the corporations, along with virtually all the elite organizations within society behind it. One could say that those too are "based on 19th century thought about rich and poor and were created not by ordinary people but by the very rich."

The horrible concepts along with the consequences for ordinary people go without saying.

But, I'm not sure that if the US were simply to pull out of the WTO whether the consequences would even be net positive and for whom. Until we do something so major and drastic (something which would have a huge immediate impact, like abolishing the Federal Reserve), I'm not ready to endorse such a step until I better understand what would likely happen.

[happerbolic]

16. i never see any 'dolphin safe' stickers...

... on my milk cartons anymore.
Really confusing when i don't recall ever seeing cows grazing on beaches before.
(oh.. those dang prangster teens! always pulling one on us old folk)

certain japanese industries made bank off our government for all the lost profits during those labeling years through the WTO.

[Daniel537]

20. No treaty supersedes US law.

The WTO can issue whatever sanctions it wants, but it can not force us to comply with anything. Clearly you don't understand the nature of the US constitution.

[leveymg]

22. You clearly haven't read the US Constitution. Treaties are "the supreme law of the land"

- Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Look it up.

[Daniel537]

23. Reid v. Covert

Read up.

"Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html

[leveymg]

25. Only in such cases as a clearly established conflict exists.

That isn't likely to found in this instance.

[Angleae]

34. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says nothing about treaties being "the supreme law of the land"

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

All this says is that POTUS can enter into treaties with approval of 2/3rds of the senate.


Article VI however expands on this

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

The "supreme law of the land" doesn't seem so supreme.

[OrwellwasRight]

41. A) it certainly does

try reading the Constitution.

B) do you even understand how the WTO works? The rulings are not advisory. If the US refuses to change its laws, it will be penalized by being charged higher tariffs, which is why, in each case, the US HAS in fact relented and changed its laws -- we have had to repeal turtle-safe shrimp laws; amend dolphin-safe tuna laws; we are being retaliated against because of our WTO-illegal cotton subsidies; we had to repeal a tax scheme called a "foreign sales corporation; and we are now going to have to repeal the ban on clove cigarettes. Likewise, other countries have had to repeal bottle recycling schemes (Belgium) and bans on GMO foods (EU).

You are kidding yourself if you think the WTO does not chill our domestic policy making and put the goal of "trade at all costs" above all.

[Skittles]

6. where can I complain about their shoddy work?

[Phlem]

7. WTF!?

And in other news, up is down.

F'em

-p

[Odin2005]

13. India can go fuck off all I care, quit taking our jobs!!!

[magic59]

15. AHHHH, that's too bad

India has some the the strongest protectionist laws in the world, its too bad the US gave all its jobs away. Too little, too late.

[LynneSin]

17. Folks just a reminder that we have many wonderful Indian Americans who post here at DU

I know that there are issues with the H1-B VISAs and the offshoring of American jobs but in all reality that's mainly because we have US laws here in this country that allow this to happen. Let's focus our anger on those who deserve it.

[OhioChick]

28. Meanwhile...."India's strict visa regulations hamper entry of skilled foreigners"

4 Mar, 2012, 10.00PM IST, Ishani Duttagupta,ET Bureau

Alexandra Patargia is a 26-year-old civil engineer from Greece. After an engineering degree from Athens, she completed her master's degree in development administration and planning from London and is now keen on finding a job in India.

"I have been following the India growth story for the past couple of years. My qualifications in civil engineering and development should find a very good fit in India, I feel. Besides, India is on a growth path while European countries such as ours are not doing very well," she says. However, her job search in India has so far not yielded results.

The main reason for this is the $25,000 per annum lower limit that the Indian government has set for giving employment visas to skilled overseas workers. For Patargia, who has two years of work experience in Greece, an annual salary below $25,000 is acceptable. "I would like to work in India to gain experience. I'm willing to start with a lower salary. I know that in my kind of job, there will be an annual increase in the salary based on performance. However, the Indian government rules don't allow that," she says.

Many young professionals like Patargia now want India on their CVs and the reason is not always mind-boggling entry level salaries. Mumbai-based lawyer Ashok Pratap, who has a growing clientele of foreigners looking for employment visas, sees the interest among young foreign professionals to work in India going beyond just good salaries.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-04/news/31121422_1_annual-floor-limit-annual-salary-india-growth-story

Stay classy, India.

[closeupready]

29. Yup. They want it both ways. Just like with foreign aid.

They claim they need it, and then they go building a vanity space program for how many hundreds of millions of dollars...

[cosmicone]

31. India is a net donor country in all multilateral bodies now.

Indians had pent $2 billion plus to support the US led Afghanistan rebuilding program -- a mess that Pakistan created and is continuing to create.

PS - Pakistan is a net recipient of aid -- with practically nothing to export other than terrorism and heroin.

[ChromeFoundry]

30. They should put sanctions on the US

...in both exporting workers and importing our call center jobs over there... that'll teach us a lesson!

This is not the first time they have tried this bullshit stunt. It didn't work last time either...

[cosmicone]

32. It is not a one way street.

India has purchased in excess of $180 billion in US goods and services over the past 3 years. India could easily start buying Airbuses instead of Boeing planes or from Siemens and ABB instead of GE or from Komatsu and Shimadzu instead of Caterpillar and International Harvester.

Some people on DU think that India just takes and doesn't give anything in return.


Edited for typos -- had cataract surgery today - sorry!

[OrwellwasRight]

42. This isn't about India.

It is about the WTO -- and how its rules allow trade to trump every other interest a national government might have, whether that is environmental regulations or promoting domestic industry. The WTO isn't good for American workers, and it is not great for Indian workers either. It IS good for corporations. They make out like bandits.

[cosmicone]

43. I agree, but ....

did you read all the posts before mine which were anti-India?

[OrwellwasRight]

44. I guess I think better not to validate them.

They don't seem very DU to me. More like creepy Freeper posts.