US Senate votes 85-12 in favour of India’s Nuclear Bill

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/17ndeal8.htm?q=tp&file=.htm

Killer amendment killed, but Hillary votes for it http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/17ndeal6.htm?q=tp&file=.htm

btw… is is just me, or does anyone else think hillary clinton is a biaaaaaaatch

The Coalition for Partnership with India urges all supporters U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation to call your Senator immediately to urge a VOTE AGAINST THE BOXER AMENDMENT of S.3709.

The Boxer Amendment would ban any military-to-military contact between India and Iran. However, India has been clear in its opposition to IranÂ’s nuclear program, and has repeatedly sided with the U.S. in the UN Security Council. By seeking legislate IndiaÂ’s foreign policy, this amendment would force India to reject the overall agreement. The BOXER AMENDMENT WILL SERVE ONLY TO PREVENT U.S.-INDIA CIVILIAN NUCLEAR COOPERATION AND SHOULD BE OPPOSED.

are you implying that all republicans are racists? and that, no democrats are racists?

Race is tangential in both examples. Nationalist, specifically economic nationalist, is a more accurate description.

one of the most powerful institutional lobbies on the Republican side are xenophobes and racists against immigration both legal and illegal, Indian

Considering that from 2000-2006, under a Republican Senate/Congress/President, more than 400,000 Indians came into the country legally, bought houses, cars, TV’s, sponsored their parents, in-laws, third-cousins, started businesses etc etc, your statement is utter crap.

It’s the AFL-CIO that’s xenophobic and racist (nice link, Manju), and they are hand-in-glove with the Democratic party.

M. Nam

Of course I understand that, I have faced a few incidents which made feel like an outsider in the society. I am not arguing that. When I said preserve social order I meant continuity in the society (in the perspective of the current majority, not mine). The changing face of America is something that threatens a big chunk of the society, and I hear this from people I know. They might be republicans but they are still part of the society. A fast paced change in the language and culture takes away the security one expects in a place they call home. Immigrant populations which don’t assimilate pose a problem anywhere in the world and I think the US has done a pretty good job in absorbing them so far. But now there is a threat of that changing.

I took that your line about standing in the grocery checkout line is representative of the changing face of society and my point was there is a reason for the resistance to change. And that the reason needs to be acknowledged in the point you made here. Anyway we are going off topic here, so I’ll stop.

Racial purity!!!! That elusive goal …

While republicans claim it’s the illegal part they don’t like, it’s really the (brown) immigration part.

Exactly !!! You dont have to be a Doctor like Sister “Desishiksa” to figure that one out

What makes you think they would rather stand in line with YOU at the grocery store, even if you came here legally? While republicans claim it’s the illegal part they don’t like, it’s really the (brown) immigration part. I knew tons of illegal Irish immigrants in Boston and no one wants to build a wall around Ireland to keep them from getting out. If the jobs are there, and going unfilled, then there is obviously scope for expanding immigration to let more migrant farmworkers in.

My point is that Republicans don’t like foreigners on American soil (to continue the agricultural metaphors). Where is the validity in that?

Preserve social order maybe?

Could you explain what you meant by that?