I remember shortly after the 2008 economic crash when the world found out about the massive and systemic fraud in the US Wall Street and FED my radio station for decades, NPR showed its new colors by becoming Wall Street all the time----US Chamber of Commerce----just as BBC in UK has----making a statement that Wall Street was to dismantle the Statue of Liberty and send it back to France. They meant that the days of Liberty, Justice, and Equality were over in the US under Clinton neo-liberalism, Bush neo-conservatism and the NEW WORLD ORDER and Trans Pacific Trade Pact. Physically that statue is still there but the American people have allowed the same global pols to come to office refusing to engage in politics and become the REAL progressive candidates against Clinton neo-liberals or in Baltimore's case----Hopkins neo-cons running as Democrats.
Lying, cheating, and stealing have been the American export since Reagan/Clinton and went on steroids under Bush/Obama. Naked capitalism can't stand to look at a Statue of Liberty after all.
The first thing Obama and Clinton neo-liberals in Congress did after the economic crash exposing systemic criminal activity in US corporations was to change immigration law----instead of the tired and hungry-----they allowed the rich of the world to buy their citizenship and leaving the application list dormant. Since the percentage of sociopaths in a population is very low, Wall Street needed to import its sociopaths from around the world----the world's rich gaining their wealth from aiding Wall Street in defrauding world citizens and aiding US manufacturing corporations by running sweat shop factories and devastating the environment and enslaving those nation's citizens.
WALL STREET SAID----OK----NOW IT'S TIME TO BRING THIS BACK TO THE US AND AMERICAN CITIZENS AND WE NEED THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO PULL IT OFF---THIRD WORLD CITIZENS WHO NEVER KNEW WHAT US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THE MEANING OF THE STATUE OF LIBERTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
So, for the last several years Obama has opened the US to a flow of foreign investors and global corporations staking claim as the job makers for the impoverished American people.
CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS AND BUSH NEO-CONS SAY----WE DON'T WANT THE FIRST THING AN IMMIGRANT SEES TO BE A SYMBOL OF JUSTICE! THAT IS OLD-SCHOOL AS INNER CITY YOUTH ARE TAUGHT TO SAY.
Statue of Liberty Arrives in America...126 years ago today
By Stephen Peck, Web Team Intern
On this day, in 1885, the defining landmark of the United States arrived in New York harbor. It had traveled across the Atlantic from France, but that short trip was only a small moment in the winding journey behind the creation of the quintessential icon of liberty and freedom: the statue of Liberty Enlightening the World.
20 years prior, a young sculptor named Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi sat quietly at a dinner party listening to the host, Edouard Rene Lefebvre de Laboulaye, speak.
The small group of Frenchmen assembled at the party were what many at the time would call “radicals.” They were citizens opposed to the reign of Napoleon III and in favor of a Republican government.
Laboulaye praised the relationship between France and the United States, an alliance dating back to the Revolutionary War, when French assistance to the colonial cause proved to be a decisive reason why the war was won. (Pictured below are two stamps commemorating that alliance: 1952, 3c Marquis de Lafayette and the 1978, 13c French Alliance stamp)
Laboulaye referred to the United States and France as “Two Sisters,” each with a love of liberty. Thinking aloud, Laboulaye asked how wonderful it would be if a monument could be erected in America from the French celebrating their alliance and similar beliefs in democracy and liberty.
Bartholdi heard these words and was fascinated. The spark that would light Lady Liberty’s eternal torch had been ignited.
Bartholdi (pictured at left in 1985m 22c commemorating his work) continued to work on other projects. It wasn’t until 1871 when things got serious regarding the creation of a French statue to be given to the United States.
After speaking with Laboulaye, Bartholdi set sail to America with one goal: “I will try to glorify the Republic and Liberty over there, in the hope that someday I will find it again here.”
Armed only with a sketch and a small model of the statue he entitled “Liberty Enlightening the World,” Bartholdi met with some of America’s elite, including President Ulysses S. Grant. The two countries agreed that France would provide the statue and the U.S. would provide its pedestal and location.
Upon his arrival in New York harbor, Bartholdi set his eyes on Bedloe’s Island, a place he deemed a perfect resting place for the statue. “The gateway to America,” he called the location.
His vision was generally well received in America, but fundraising efforts did not match the enthusiasm. Back in France, the monetary support slowly trickled in once the political situation settled down in 1875. Bartholdi began construction at the foundry of Gaget, Gauthier and Co. With copper entirely donated by outside merchants, he began forming his Liberty statue.
It was to be a female figure (some say modeled after Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom), cloaked in flowing robes, adorned with a seven pointed crown representing the seven continents, and holding a torch aloft.
The statue itself was to be surprisingly light for its size. Its outer copper skin is only 2.5 millimeters thick and has an intricate, internal steel framework designed by Alexandre-Gustave Eiffel.
As construction continued on the colossal statue (from base to torch it was to be 152 feet tall), fundraising became the big issue. The French eventually raised all the funds they needed by 1879 thanks to clever lotteries and auctions, but efforts in the States moved much slower.
The economic downturn in America set off by the panic of 1873 caused the Statue of Liberty to tumble down the list of priorities in the collective minds of the American public. As the New York Times wrote, “No true patriot can countenance any such expenditures for bronze females in the present state of our finances.”
The United States was only in charge of constructing the pedestal upon which the statue was to sit. The goal was to raise $100,000, but fundraising was so bad that construction of the pedestal stopped altogether in 1884. The future of the Statue of Liberty looked grim.
Until Joseph Pulitzer, and the American public, saved the day.
In March of 1885, Pulitzer (pictured at right in the 1947, 3c stamp) began a campaign to raise $100,000 for the completion of the pedestal in his newspaper, The World. He promised to publish the names of everybody who donated, no matter the amount.
Pulitzer wrote that the statue was paid for by “the masses of the French people. Let us respond in like manner. Let us not wait for the millionaires to give this money. It is not a gift from the millionaires of France to the millionaires of America, but a gift of the whole people of France to the whole people of America.”
The campaign captivated America and was mutually beneficial for the pedestal to be completed ($100,000 was raised over four months from 120,000 different donors) and for The World (it became the newspaper with the largest circulation in North America).
On June 17, 1885, the statue, broken up into 350 pieces like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, arrived in New York harbor aboard the French ship Isere. It was assembled on site as soon as the pedestal was assembled.
On October 28, 1886, the Statute of Liberty was officially dedicated. The unveiling was an all day party complete with the first ever ticker tape parade (traders threw rolls of ticker tape out of the windows of Wall Street), and an address by President Grover Cleveland.
“[Its] stream of light shall pierce the darkness of ignorance and man’s oppression until Liberty enlightens the world,” Cleveland said.
In 1903, a plaque with “The New Colossus,” a poem by Emma Lazarus written in 1883 as part of the fundraising efforts, was affixed to the pedestal.
It contains the iconic lines, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” (Immigrants' first image of America was the Statue of Liberty as they sailed into the harbor. They were honored in this 1998, 32c, double-sided stamp pictured below)
For over 120 years, with broken chains underfoot, tablet in hand, and torch held high, Liberty has welcomed thousands of immigrants to her shores and has served as a constant reminder that independence and human liberty are values worth fighting for.
As described by UNESCO when the monument was designated as a World Heritage Site in 1984, the Statue of Liberty is a “masterpiece of the human spirit” that “endures as a highly potent symbol- inspiring contemplation, debate and protest- of ideals such as liberty, peace, human rights, abolition of slavery, democracy and opportunity.”
The US does not need foreign investors to create businesses or jobs----we need our government to recover tens of trillions of dollars in corporate fraud and hand it back to the American people and government coffers and get back to handing out small business loans that are not simply global corporate start ups. THESE POLS ARE DELIBERATELY IGNORING ALL RIGHTS AS CITIZENS AND MOVING FORWARD AS CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS SAY WITH THE FEW AT THE TOP WITH THE WORLD'S MONEY. Get rid of these global pols and VOILA-----all that fraud comes back to the American people. IT IS WORTH BECOMING ENGAGED----
This policy is about building the platform for Trans Pacific Trade Pact which seeks to allow global corporations in the US to operate as they do overseas----fill the US economy with global corporations and it is a ward of the world---not a nation with sovereign laws. THAT IS THE GOAL OF TPP AND THESE IMMIGRATION LAWS.
Remember that once a foreign national is a US citizen they can run for elected office and in a short time all US national politics has people from around the world in our Congress----and state houses ----working for global corporate tribunals and not recognizing the American people as anything other than third world human capital.
The immigrants at the lower wage level will be the first to tell you those foreign rich being allowed to buy US citizenship are the very ones from whom these immigrants are trying to escape
Wall Street is trying to fill all the leadership positions in government and business with the sociopaths that live by lying, cheating, and stealing ----winning by any means possible.
Foreign Investors Buy Their Way to US Citizenship The new SR 520 floating bridge takes shape next to the current bridge in Medina, Washington. Nearly 100 foreign investors, mostly from China, purchased municipal bonds in this project to qualify for U.S. green cards. (Photo courtesy WSDOT)
- Pakistani Immigrant Makes Mark in US National Football League
- Immigration Debate Heats Up as Australians Prepare to Vote
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON-- An Idaho gold mine, a proposed wind farm in central Washington state, a new casino in Las Vegas and ski resort expansions in Vermont, all have one thing in common: they're investment vehicles for well-to-do families seeking U.S. green cards.
Under U.S. immigration law, wealthy foreigners can get a green card by investing at least a half-million dollars to create at least 10 jobs in America.
That looked like a good plan to Canadian Jordan Gagner. He and his wife had a problem a few years ago. They needed to relocate to a drier, desert climate. Something like Arizona. At first glance, the prospects for permanently relocating south of the border looked daunting.
"Being a self-employed wealth manager and a teacher, those are two occupations that are not on the top 10 lists of visas being given to foreigners to come down to the U.S.," Gagner said. "Trying to get an executive visa of some sort would've been very hard to do."
Path to citizenship
But then Gagner discovered the immigrant investor visa shortcut. He and a number of other foreign investors chipped in $500,000 each to build an assisted living complex outside Bellingham, Washington. Gagner got credit for creating lots of construction jobs in the midst of the recent recession and the whole family received green cards.
Immigrant investors seeking U.S. visas financed the construction of this office and retail complex called "Home Plate Center" across from Seattle's baseball stadium. (Photo by Tom Banse for VOA) Bellingham immigration lawyer David Andersson orchestrated the deal. He's made a business out of bringing together developers who need low cost capital and prospective immigrants with money.
"If you have a solid investment and there may be a benefit which exceeds mere return, such as the ability to move your family to America, then an investor may consider a lower return than, for example, a bank," he said.
Andersson was a pioneer in an industry that he says is now experiencing amazing proliferation and growth. The matchmaking companies are officially known as "EB-5 regional centers," so named for the relevant provision of U.S. immigration law. Originally, these investment centers stuck to straightforward real estate deals. But now the options for wealthy, would-be immigrants are much more diverse.
More than 200 immigrant investors from China are financing the revival of 100-year-old gold mines in southwest Idaho. In a marketing video, a former executive of Gold Hill Reclamation and Mining describes how his company reprocesses leftover ore and mine tailings.
A majority of immigrant investors come from China and prospective investors are asking more questions before signing up. This past winter, a Chicago hotel development that attracted backing from several hundred visa seekers was exposed as a fraud.
Other Chinese investors demanded refunds from the organizer of a project tied to a new toll bridge between Seattle, Washington, and its eastern suburbs. They put money into state highway construction bonds, but then had to wait for an unusually long time - 20 months - to apply for their visas because of uncertainty over whether federal officials would approve the novel investment. “Novel” for EB-5 visa purposes, that is.
Mike Mattox and his Lacey, Washington-based firm Access the USA organized that deal. He says, despite those complications, offering municipal bonds could be a game changer.
"If the underwriting is in place, the relationship is in place," Mattox said. "If it is done correctly, it will be very successful. As far as marketing, this is what the market wants."
The owner of a different immigration and economic development firm based in Lynnwood, Washington, thinks there's also a market for wind power investors. The firm invited well-off Koreans to back a proposed wind farm in central Washington state.
But nearby landowner Harland Radomske fears a wind farm next door will reduce the value of his horse and cattle ranch. And that's not all.
"What upsets me is also just the plain fact to realize we have all of this controversy going over immigration, the borders of Mexico, and all of that, issues before the Congress and Senate and so on," Radomske said. "And now we find out unbeknownst, if you’re a rich foreigner, you can buy your way to citizenship."
The wind project developers declined multiple requests for an interview.
Despite the general controversy over immigration, the foreign investor program has broad support in Congress. Legislation recently sent to the House by the U.S. Senate would make the program permanent.
Attorney David Andersson acknowledges the visa program accounts for only a small fraction of direct foreign investment. But he says it brings favorable results.
"In creating jobs in your neighborhood and in our state, the unemployment rate goes down," he said. "We have more taxpayers. Therefore, we can have more services. In other words, we have economic development."
The immigrant investor program has an annual cap of 10,000 visas and had never come close to that number before. But the regional center industry group predicts investor visa applications could reach the cap next year.
Under the guise of fueling the US real estate market foreign investors needing to launder the money they fleeced from their citizens into real estate abroad were given an open door just as US fraud was laundered in the same way overseas. So, all those homes people lost to subprime mortgage fraud now is moved to global real estate investment firms gobbling up all of the American real estate----like TELESIS here in Baltimore. Shell corporations simply moving all that loot stolen in fraud to real estate around the world. Time was important because of the building of the next massive fraud in the US bond market-----the collapse wiping out all wealth tied to the stock market and all government assets tied to credit bond debt. You must be in real estate or invested in gold to be protected from this coming massive bond fraud!
The entire boom in real estate during Obama's terms in office was this movement of US real estate into the hands of foreign real estate investment firms as US media and pols claimed the market was soaring and US economy growing.
THIS WAS ALL IT WAS----ENDING US NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY BY PLACING AMERICAN REAL ESTATE ONCE OWNED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UP TO THE WORLD MARKET FOR THE RICH.
I watched as memes shouting Obama is the best President creating a soaring market circulated and almost none of these American people knew they were cheering the auctioning of the American dream and national sovereignty.
Having third world rich as landlords with 90% of Americans soon to be renters sets the stage for MUMBAI slums and Baltimore-style landlord fraud stealing renter's money. That is the third world way----and Baltimore has a renter's court rigged for rent fraud operating openly for decades just for that reason----KEEPING THE POOR POOR.
Foreigners' Sweetener: Buy House, Get a Visa
US bill uses 3-year visas to lure wealthy foreign investors to buy $500,000 in residential propertyNick TimiraosThe Wall Street Journal, 21 October 2011The reeling housing market has come to this: To shore it up, two Senators are preparing to introduce a bipartisan bill Thursday that would give residence visas to foreigners who spend at least $500,000 to buy houses in the U.S.
The provision is part of a larger package of immigration measures, co-authored by Sens. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Mike Lee (R., Utah), designed to spur more foreign investment in the U.S.
Supporters of the bill, co-authored by Sen. Charles Schumer, say it would help make up for American buyers who are holding back.
Foreigners have accounted for a growing share of home purchases in South Florida, Southern California, Arizona and other hard-hit markets. Chinese and Canadian buyers, among others, are taking advantage not only of big declines in U.S. home prices and reduced competition from Americans but also of favorable foreign exchange rates.
To fuel this demand, the proposed measure would offer visas to any foreigner making a cash investment of at least $500,000 on residential real-estate—a single-family house, condo or townhouse. Applicants can spend the entire amount on one house or spend as little as $250,000 on a residence and invest the rest in other residential real estate, which can be rented out.
The measure would complement existing visa programs that allow foreigners to enter the U.S. if they invest in new businesses that create jobs. Backers believe the initiative would help soak up an excess supply of inventory when many would-be American home buyers are holding back because they're concerned about their jobs or because they would have to take a big loss to sell their current house.
"This is a way to create more demand without costing the federal government a nickel," Sen. Schumer said in an interview.
International buyers accounted for around $82 billion in U.S. residential real-estate sales for the year ending in March, up from $66 billion during the previous year period, according to data from the National Association of Realtors. Foreign buyers accounted for at least 5.5% of all home sales in Miami and 4.3% of Phoenix home sales during the month of July, according to MDA DataQuick.
Foreigners immigrating to the U.S. with the new visa wouldn't be able to work here unless they obtained a regular work visa through the normal process. They'd be allowed to bring a spouse and any children under the age of 18 but they wouldn't be able to stay in the country legally on the new visa once they sold their properties.
The provision would create visas that are separate from current programs so as to not displace anyone waiting for other visas. There would be no cap on the home-buyer visa program.
Over the past year, Canadians accounted for one quarter of foreign home buyers, and buyers from China, Mexico, Great Britain, and India accounted for another quarter, according to the National Association of Realtors. For buyers from some countries, restrictive immigration rules are "a deterrent to purchase here, for sure," says Sally Daley, a real-estate agent in Vero Beach, Fla. She estimates that around one-third of her sales this year have gone to foreigners, an all-time high.
"Without them, we would be stagnant," says Ms. Daley. "They're hiring contractors, buying furniture, and they're also helping the market correct by getting inventory whittled down."
In March, Harry Morrison, a Canadian from Lakefield, Ontario, bought a four-bedroom vacation home in a gated community in Vero Beach. "House prices were going down, and the exchange rate was quite favorable," said Mr. Morrison, who first bought a home there from Ms. Daley four years ago.
While a special visa would allow Canadian buyers like Mr. Morrison to spend more time in the U.S., he said he isn't sure "what other benefit a visa would give me."
The idea has some high-profile supporters, including Warren Buffett, who this summer floated the idea of encouraging more "rich immigrants" to buy homes. "If you wanted to change your immigration policy so that you let 500,000 families in but they have to have a significant net worth and everything, you'd solve things very quickly," Mr. Buffett said in an August interview with PBS's Charlie Rose.
The measure could also help turn around buyer psychology, said mortgage-bond pioneer Lewis Ranieri. He said the program represented "triage" for a housing market that needs more fixes, even modest ones.
But other industry executives greeted the proposal with skepticism. Foreign buyers "don't need an incentive" to buy homes, said Richard Smith, chief executive of Realogy Corp., which owns the Coldwell Banker and Century 21 real-estate brands. "We have a lot of Americans who are willing to buy. We just have to fix the economy."
The measure may have a more targeted effect in exclusive markets like San Marino, Calif., that have become popular with foreigners. Easier immigration rules could be "tremendous" because of the difficulty many Chinese buyers have in obtaining visas, says Maggie Navarro, a local real-estate agent.
Ms. Navarro recently sold a home for $1.67 million, around 8% above the asking price, to a Chinese national who works in the mining industry. She says nearly every listing she's put on the market in San Marino "has had at least one full price cash offer from a buyer from mainland China."
What we need to know that many of these deals allowing global corporations or investment firms to come to the US to secure real estate and/or infrastructure is tied to US rich partnered with these foreign entities and laundering back all those tens of trillions of dollars stolen from the American people and our Federal, state, and local governments. For example----you would think VEOLA is a global French corporation but Ivy League endowments make up a major shareholder block and that Ivy League endowment is mostly financial frauds like the subprime mortgage and LIBOR frauds.
As you see Bush set the agency below in place just as the US economic was going to crash knowing the next President----the rigged elections of global pols----would continue moving this assault on US national sovereignty and open the US to laundered fraud from around the world. China is a top investor as its Chinese-style Wall Street was top spinner of these Wall Street frauds.
THIS IS WHAT OBAMA AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS IN CONGRESS HAVE BEEN CONCENTRATING ON AS THEY PRETEND TO BE FIGHTING OVER AUSTERITY TO TAKE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MORE WEALTH TO REPLACE THE TENS OF TRILLIONS LOOTED FROM THE US TREASURY.
So, today cities like New York and Miami are known as cities of Oligarchs with the rich of the world living and working from these cities building global corporations in the US that will operate without any attention to a US Constitution or Americans having rights as citizens. Every level of government in the US-----state assemblies like Maryland Assembly have been led and have installed all the laws and policies to move this NEW WORLD ORDER----the likes of the Mike Busch and Mike Millers-----the Maggie McIntosh/Kurt Anderson/Catherine Pugh et al in Baltimore----all working to install these policies that kill their constituents. These pols no more care for the American people than the man on the moon-----they are only looking to install these global corporate tribunal rule platforms. Remember, this coming US infrastructure stimulus of a trillion dollars will all go to these global corporations with ownership belonging to a global board....no US going on. What these deals are doing is moving all ownership to a global pool of wealthy investors and taking all control from the American people-----
and this is what your Congress person, your state house pols, and your city pols are building with policies installed these several years of Obama's terms----continuing the Clinton and Bush global policies. These foreign nationals investing then become US citizens
Only sociopaths would break up an American nation built on freedom and democracy to build a global totalitarian society.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States. CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800. The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008. Further information about each of these reforms is available via the links below.
Foreign Ownership of U.S. Infrastructure
Authors: Eben Kaplan, and Lee Hudson Teslik
Updated: February 13, 2007
This publication is now archived.
Congress is again taking up the issue of foreign investment in U.S. infrastructure, nearly one year after the United Arab Emirates-owned company Dubai Ports World set off heated debate with its purchase of a company that ran U.S. ports. Dubai Ports World eventually sold its U.S. operations to an American company, but the central issues of the foreign ownership debate remain far from settled. These questions include how to balance economic openness with national security and how much control foreign companies should be allowed to have over U.S. infrastructure. Right after the Dubai Ports World controversy, Congress proposed the sweeping National Defense Critical Infrastructure Protection Act, aimed at blocking foreign-owned companies from purchasing or operating critical infrastructure. That bill never passed. Meanwhile, increased publicity has only added to the burdens on the U.S. panel charged with monitoring incoming investment, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which received 73 percent more filings for review in 2006 than it did in 2005.
What new measures are under review in Congress? A bill pending approval in the House Financial Services Committee aims to set up a panel to oversee the operations of CFIUS. The panel would span twelve separate government agencies and be headed by the Treasury Department. According to February 7 testimony by Clay Lowery, the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for international affairs, two primary qualms with the bill come from the Bush administration. These are: 1) its requirement that only the two senior-most officials at CFIUS can certify the completion of a review; and 2) a requirement mandating a secondary 45-day investigation of any review involving businesses owned by a foreign government.
What are the business community’s objections to the bill? Some business groups have shared the basic concern that an overly stringent review process could scare off incoming foreign investment. A January 2007 study by the National Foundation for American Policy, a think tank promoting free market research, concluded that CFIUS’s increased restrictions following Dubai Ports threaten to dampen incoming foreign investment. But Barney Frank (D-MA), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, has insisted that the pending legislation is sensitive to these concerns. “We will treat you and your money very nicely—that is the message of this legislation,” Frank said at a recent committee hearing, addressing foreign investors.
What concerns are there over foreign companies owning U.S. infrastructure? The fears over foreign entities owning critical infrastructure generally stem from the belief that foreign companies do not have as vested an interest in security as U.S. firms. Traditionally, U.S. officials have taken measures to keep sensitive military technology and the production of defense-related goods under the control of American companies. But since 9/11, there has been an increasing concern that foreign ownership of certain U.S. infrastructure could make the United States more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
The most pressing concerns arise when a state-owned foreign company will have a hands-on role in operations. "The issue is less about ownership and more about management," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of CFR's Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. While Holtz-Eakin acknowledges that there are legitimate security concerns, it is his view that foreign companies, state-owned or private, should be free to earn money from critical U.S. infrastructure provided they do not have direct operational control. Todd Malan, chief executive officer of the Organization for International Investment, echoes this view, explaining that "ownership [of infrastructure] is a small part of a given vulnerability."
What has changed since the Dubai Ports World controversy? The formerly low-profile CFIUS has assumed a tougher posture toward foreign firms seeking to invest in U.S. critical infrastructure. According to a January 2007 report (PDF) by the National Foundation for American Policy, CFIUS’s workload is now far bulkier than it was a year ago: The committee reviewed 73 percent more filings in 2006 than it did in 2005, and had seven second-stage investigations in 2006, as compared to two in 2005. This jump has calmed some nerves, but has also prompted concerns that the agency’s newfound vigilance will scare off foreign investment. Business groups have objected to the restrictions that have been placed on some high-profile companies from ally countries. When the French company Alcatel recently purchased Lucent Technologies, for instance, CFIUS approved the purchase but imposed significant provisions allowing for the deal to be ripped apart retroactively should the U.S. government see fit. A joint venture by the German company Siemens and the Finnish company Nokia to combine their mobile and landline telecom networks has come under similar scrutiny, further bristling business leaders.
What are the benefits of foreign investment for the United States? David Marchick, who co-authored a July 2006 CFR Special Report on foreign investment and national security, says that "attracting foreign investment is in itself a national security imperative of the United States because foreign investment is critical to the vitality and strength of our economy." With the U.S. trade deficit in excess of $725 billion in 2005, a steady influx of money from foreign investors is a necessity. As part of a process known as "in-sourcing," foreign companies employ some 5.3 million American workers in the United States. On average, these workers earn 34 percent more than workers at similar U.S.-owned businesses. Furthermore, foreign companies operating within the United States produce more than 21 percent of all U.S. exports, Malan says.
Welcoming foreign investment is also a fundamental tenet of U.S. trade policy. The aim is to open investment opportunities for U.S. companies abroad while at the same time creating a more stable international system and provide equal opportunities within U.S. borders. "It has been a deep belief of the United States that by taking leadership in economic openness...nations would be knit together," says Holtz-Eakin.
What is “critical infrastructure?” Much of the legislation seeking to implement controls on foreign investment focuses on foreign firms which own “critical infrastructure” within the United States. The Patriot Act defines critical infrastructure as systems and assets so vital to the United States that any breakdown in them "would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health, or safety.” The National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets (PDF), submitted by President Bush in 2003, outlines eleven sectors of critical infrastructure: agriculture and food, water, public health, emergency services, defense industrial bases, telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and finance, chemical industry and hazardous materials, and postal services and shipping. The "key assets" identified in the report are: national monuments and icons, nuclear power plants, dams, government facilities, and commercial key assets.
What foreign entities are most invested in the United States? What do they own? The country with the most holdings in the United States is the United Kingdom, followed by Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. At the end of 2004, the sum of all foreign assets in the United States had an estimated market value of $2.7 trillion, though only 2 percent of these holdings are owned by state-run companies. Foreign companies' holdings are most concentrated in the manufacturing sector, but they also extend into several of the eleven "critical" areas identified by the Bush administration. In the energy sector, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, and Venezuela's state-owned Citgo all have holdings within U.S. borders. Finland's Nokia and Sweden's Ericsson are major telecommunications providers; French-owned Sodexho U.S.A. is the largest food service company in the United States, and even serves meals on Marine Corps bases; and the largest private security firm operating in the United States, Securitas, is based in Sweden.
Middle Eastern entities (excluding Israel) bore the brunt of the ire surrounding the Dubai Ports World purchase. These entities account for about 0.5 percent of foreign investment in theUnited States. However, these companies have some high-profile holdings, including New York's Plaza and Essex House hotels, the Caribou Coffee Co., and the aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Industries, Inc.
How are foreign investments reviewed? CFIUS is made up of twelve members, each from a different government agency. The Secretary of the Treasury chairs the committees, but other members include representatives from the departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the National Security Council.
When the Treasury Department receives notice that a foreign company wishes to purchase a U.S. company or property, it puts in motion a thirty-day review during which each member of CFIUS considers the effects of the purchase on its own jurisdiction. The reviewers have at their disposal the full resources of the U.S. intelligence community. Any concerns raised during the review trigger a 45-day investigation, at the end of which CFIUS makes a recommendation and the president has fifteen days to make a final decision.
CFIUS was originally established in 1975 to monitor the impact of foreign investment. In 1988, Congress passed the Exon-Florio provision of the Defense Production Act, giving the president the authority to block foreign acquisitions on the grounds of national security. The president then delegated the review process to CFIUS. In 1992, the "Byrd" amendment required a thorough investigation of any purchase in which the acquirer is owned or operated by a foreign government. In the case of the Dubai Ports World, which is state-owned, CFIUS failed to conduct an investigation until after Congress raised objections.
Is the CFIUS review process sufficient to protect national security? Experts disagree. A September 2005 report (PDF) from the Government Accountability Office found that the review board tends to over-prioritize the U.S. open investment policy and noted that some CFIUS members found the process "not sufficiently flexible to protect critical infrastructure." But Malan says CFIUS "starts from the standpoint that its priority is national security, but it inherently recognizes the need for economic openness." Marchik agrees. "The [CFIUS] process works very well now. It's a very rigorous process," he says. In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee on March 1, he described a series of "network security agreements" that have been negotiated to mitigate the security risk of foreign acquisitions. These include provisions that certain sensitive positions may only be held by U.S. citizens, and measures subjecting U.S.-based facilities to inspection by government agencies on as little as thirty-minutes' notice.
U.S. lawmakers have criticized what they say is the secretive way the government probes foreign takeovers of U.S. assets on the grounds of national security. Some have called for public hearings on such proposed transactions before a final decision is made. "The biggest problem," says Holtz-Eakin, "is the absence of transparency in the process."
Has foreign investment aroused security concerns in the past? Yes. Ever since the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century, the United States has relied on at least some level of foreign investment. Over the years, there were several instances where this threatened national security. In 1915, when a German diplomat accidentally left his briefcase on a train platform, U.S. officials discovered that German investments in the United States were helping to build up the German war-fighting capacity. When the United States entered the First World War, President Wilson seized these assets. In 1927, Congress cited security concerns when it banned foreign ownership of radio broadcasting capabilities.
More recently, concerns raised by U.S. officials blocked the attempted 1987 acquisition of Fairchild Semiconductor Corp., a high-technology manufacturing company, by Japan's Fujitsu, Ltd. In 2005, congressional uproar prevented the Chinese company CNOOC from purchasing the U.S. energy firm Unocal.
Obama and Clinton neo-liberals welcomed the rich from China purged by the Chinese leader trying to clean up all of the criminality and corruption brought to China by the Clinton Initiative and Wall Street during the last few decades. Wall Street infused a growing Chinese Stock Market with the same criminal financial instruments and US corporations in China operating unfettered by US regulations taught Chinese corporations the same winning at any cost of US neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. Chinese leaders of course want control over all that loot just as US corporations looted our US Treasury so they could control the US economy. The ultra-rich are chasing the rich away to get control of all the money in China as they are in the UK and US.
It is these Chinese made rich through the massive frauds driven by US corporations and Wall Street that are now sending that money to the US and gaining US citizenship AND THESE ARE PEOPLE HAVING PARTNERED WITH US CORPORATIONS IN CHINA FOR DECADES. THEY ARE PARTNERS---
It's like the joining of the Russian mafia with the Mexican drug cartels----a merger of criminal elements at the top and descending on the US.
Most of these rich ran the US Wall Street schemes in their nations and ran US manufacturing sweat shops that killed the Chinese environment and enslaved Chinese citizens to these sweat shops ready to do the same in the US.
Remember, the goal of Trans Pacific Trade Pact will be to bring immigrant labor from these developing nations to work as they do overseas in the US....that is what these Obama immigration policies install.
GLOBAL POLS ARE WORKING FOR THIS FUTURE GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL AND NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Rich Chinese overwhelm U.S. visa program
By Sophia Yan @sophia_yan
A dramatic surge in interest from wealthy Chinese is threatening to overwhelm a U.S. program offering investors green cards in exchange for cash. The number of applicants is now so great that the government might run out of permits.
Any foreigner willing to commit at least $500,000 and create 10 jobs in America can apply for an investor immigrant visa -- also known as an EB-5.
The demand from mainland Chinese eager to move abroad has already led the U.S. government to warn the program could hit a wall as early as this summer.
Chinese nationals account for more than 80% of visas issued, compared to just 13% a decade ago, according to government data compiled by CNNMoney. That translates to nearly 6,900 visas for Chinese nationals last year, a massive bump up from 2004, when only 16 visas were granted to Chinese.
"The program has literally taken off to the point [that] in China, the minute anybody hears I'm an immigration lawyer, the first thing they say is, 'Can we get an EB-5 visa?' " said Bernard Wolfsdorf, founder of the Wolfsdorf Immigration Law Group.
"There is a panic being created in China about the demand [getting] so big that there is going to be a visa waiting line," he said.
The EB-5 program is limited to 10,000 visas per year, a number that includes visas granted to an investor's spouse and children.
At the moment, there are 7,000 applications pending, said David Hirson, a partner at immigration law firm Fragomen. If just half are approved -- and each investor moved with two family members -- the program would easily surpass its annual limit.
Immigration lawyers said that even more applications have been made since Canada ended a similar program last month that was also popular with Chinese.
Rich Chinese laundering cash through art For rich Chinese, opportunities in America are attractive. A green card offers a way to send their children to college, escape heavy pollution and enjoy an improved quality of life, said Kate Kalmykov, an attorney with Greenberg Taurig. Plus, the EB-5 program is relatively cheap.
"The cost is very reasonable in relation to other countries," Hirson said. Australia, for example, requires a $4.5 million investment -- nine times the minimum required in the U.S.
Related story: Europe's golden visas lure rich Chinese
The comparatively low cost makes the program a viable option for increasing numbers of Chinese -- especially as household wealth in the country booms. China now boasts more than one million millionaires, according to a study by Hurun Report, an organization that tracks wealth in China.
The program's popularity has even spurred a cottage industry of investment consultants, immigration specialists and specialized relocation agents that cater specifically to the Chinese, Hirson said.
Supporters say immigrant investors have provided an important alternative source of financing, benefiting projects from Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards real estate development to a North Dakota factory that makes biodegradable food containers.
Related story: Where rich Chinese want to live
But there are plenty of critics, too. Some argue that the program is a way for the global elite to buy U.S. citizenship. Others say the scheme has too much red tape, and believe parts of it are mismanaged to the point of fraud.
Long visa waits or not, there are no signs of interest waning in China.
"The U.S. remains the most attractive country for them, because of its freedoms and its ability to cater for individual needs, including the Chinese culture," Hirson said. "It's a very comfortable transition physically."
CNNMoney (Hong Kong) March 25, 2014: 10:22 PM ET
Below you see what Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development has spent two decades building in Baltimore-----a gifting economy and it is already filled with fraud and profiteering. It simply removes all taxation for corporations and the rich and allows them to 'donate' money to create private non-profits that replace the public sector and are run by corporate directors that do what that corporations says----and it is filled with money-laundering -----which is what China is trying to stop. US corporations and Wall Street have spent several decades making China into a haven for naked capitalism-----and China has gone wild with it. This gifting scheme was probably brought to China by neo-conservative institutions like Hopkins and neo-liberal institutions like Clinton Initiative.....because you have to give the poor something to keep them from rebelling.......like a playground or a clinic.
All of these polices can be found operating in full gear in Baltimore City and it drives the criminal economy that consumes Baltimore. Baltimore Development is simply Wall Street and Johns Hopkins is the driver of moving all wealth to the top and keeping Baltimore citizens poor.
ALL THIS NEO-CONSERVATIVE BEHAVIOR HAPPENS WITH A BALTIMORE CITY HALL AND MAYOR RUNNING AS DEMOCRATS----AND MARYLAND ASSEMBLY THAT PASSES LAWS TO ALLOW BALTIMORE TO OPERATE LIKE THIS. BALTIMORE IS USED BY THE RICH MONTGOMERY COUNTY TO LAUNDER ILLEGALLY.
Well, now Hopkins is bringing all of its Chinese et al partners enriched from all this illegal behavior to the US to do the same here.
This kind of economy that was built in Baltimore and operates freely is coming to your neck of the woods! Exelon gifting a million dollars to a charter school designed to become a school for the affluent-----how public school of Exelon!
The Crackdown on China's Corrupt Gifting Economy, with Junheng Li
by Big Think Editors
Junheng Li, Founder and Head of Research at JL Warren Capital, has a unique expert's perspective on both Chinese and American markets. That's because she was born and raised in Shanghai though later moved to the United States to attend college. Lessons learned in both countries have helped Li make a name for herself on Wall Street as a shrewd financial analyst specializing in Chinese investments. Her book, Tiger Woman on Wall Street, chronicles her life while also describing her investment strategy.
As part of her Big Think Interview, Li discusses the degree to which the Chinese government has sought to crack down on corruption by targeting the country's infamous "gifting economy." Basically, the culture of corrupt gift-giving had gotten so out of control that one could spot its effects in the stock prices of companies such as Rolex and Omega. Two years ago, the Chinese government launched an anti-corruption campaign. Li explains that not many people expected it to reap results. Its success, then, has been a very pleasant surprise:
"Everyone thought it was going to be short lived but it's not. It's been two years now and it's still deepening and reaching all sectors in the economy. Originally we thought it was going to be just a purge in the military, in the government. Now it seems like it affects pretty much corporations in all sectors..."
As the government maintains pressure, the gift-givers have either been squeezed out or forced underground. What this has done is instill a renewed sense of hope and confidence among citizens while also communicating to the elite that bad behavior will not be tolerated. True to her calling as a market analyst, Li infuses her explanation with a forecast that spells bad news for luxury goods.
"Going forward I think we will see more contraction in luxury sales, not only just bags and Swiss watches but also we'll continue to see that in Macau VIP rooms, luxury autos, luxury banquets, luxury outings. So that would, to a degree, affect five-star hotels in China, expensive restaurants in China as well. If you go to any sort of conferences right now, I mean that's a really heated topic, everyone's trying to gauge the magnitude of this campaign and how long it's going to last."
For more on China's persistent anti-corruption campaign, watch this clip from Junheng Li's Big Think Interview: