It’s nice to see Xinhuanet carry a story like this. There’s no doubt of the progress being made on the social front in China. Now, when will we see parallel progress on the political front?

Related Post: Gays in China

A complaint I heard time and again in China was the difficulty Chinese people were encountering when they attempted to get a visa to travel to America. It was always the same — they were refused, but they had to pay for the privilege of simply being considered.

A friend of mine at the US embassy said the reason for all the rejections was a simple one: A huge number of applicants who are awarded a visa — especially those on student visas — like it so much in the US that they never go back to China. (That’s hearsay that I can’t document, but I’ve heard it more than once.)

After 911, a tough situation got a lot worse for everybody seeking a non-immigrant visa into the US. In my own profession, it was an enormous headache getting visas for Chinese journalists who we wanted to send to press events in America. I know of cases where senior executives needed to fly over from the US just to argue with the embassy.

In yesterday’s NYT there’s an excellent op-ed on how unfair the visa policy is. It also claims that drastically limiting the number of visas, especially for students, hurts American society by reducing the exchange of information and ideas with developing countries. (Sorry for the long clip below, but this is a topic close to my heart. I eventually want to get a visa for a Chinese friend to come study in the US.)

Even if their applications are rejected, citizens of developing nations must pay $100 for a non-immigrant visa to the United States. Not only is this policy unfair and counterproductive, but it is also unpatriotic.

The unfairness is obvious: people should not be charged for something — in this case, a visa to the United States — that they do not receive. And $100 is a huge sum in nations like India, with an annual per capita income estimated at $2,600 in 2002, or even Poland, where it is $9,700.

The State Department says these higher fees — increased from $65 in November 2002 — help pay for the cost of running America’s consular service around the world. It’s true that heightened security measures adopted in the wake of 9/11 cost more money. But rejected visa applicants should not have to pay for them. It’s also true that the higher fees have produced more revenue. But they have discouraged visitors.

From October 2000 to September 2001, 6.3 million people applied to travel to the United States for business, pleasure or medical treatment from developing nations. (These include any nations that do not have a reciprocal visa waiver agreement with the United States.) That number dropped to 3.7 million for the 2003 fiscal year. Applications for student visas fell by almost 100,000 over the same two years.

….

The combination of these factors — an increase in the visa fee and the greater likelihood of rejection — has only strengthened the perception that America has become less hospitable to foreigners in the aftermath of 9/11. So it is not surprising that fewer foreigners aspire to train at American universities and become part of the United States network of talent and innovation.

Here is where it becomes clear the policy is counterproductive: the gap in perspective and perception of the world between Americans and citizens of other nations is only becoming wider. To narrow it, America should allow more people to come here, not fewer. Winning the war of ideas against those who fear or hate American society cannot be won by keeping the world out.

America should encourage more educational, scientific and cultural exchange with the developing world and support business and leisure travel here. Of course it is costly to monitor the borders and to screen each person who would like to come to this country. But by reducing its visa fee and more efficiently screening the few bad guys from the many good guys, applications may increase — and so will revenue. At the very least, the federal government should institute a policy — mandated by Congress if necessary — of returning the $100 fee to all applicants refused entry into the United States.

I agree, outspokenly. I wish I could put into words just how frustrated (and furious) some of my friends were at the obstinacy of the visa providers, a real sense of helplessness. Yes, national security is an absolute top priority. But in this area, we go too far, and the loss far outweighs the gain.

Link via Josh Marshall.

That’s the name of a book by Po Bronson that’s become a big best-seller in the US. I was in the Newark Airport two weeks ago waiting for my flight back to the southwest when I went into the bookstore, and the title of the book simply jumped out at me. I picked it up and read the blurb, and I had to buy it.

What Should I do with My Life? isn’t really a how-to book or a self-help guide. It’s not about tips and pointers. Bronson simply interviews 55 people who have had interesting experiences coming up with their answer to the question. He uses their real names and usually includes their photo. He never gets trite or saccharine, and never pretends that there are any magic answers. Simply by telling their story, he manages to shake readers into looking at their own lives and realizing that maybe what they are doing with their lives isn’t the only way there is. Maybe we can actually do something with our lives that we love.

I’ve only read half the book, but it’s already changed the course of my job hunting. I had been toying with the idea of starting my own PR business for the past year, or of partnering with an existing business so that I’d be a co-owner, not an employee. But I was scared to death. What if there wasn’t enough incoming revenue to pay my bills? What about benefits? What about the stress of having to find new business? In my heart, I knew I’d never have the courage for it.

Just today, I took the first steps, finding a partner (a young lady I’ve worked with for years and whom I adore) and making plans. And just like that, today the phone rang and one of my old employers asked if I could do some freelance PR for his company. And we’re off….

The main message I’ve got from the book so far is that the answer to the torturous question is often right in front of our face and we don’t even know it. I love classical music and opera, yet I’ve never checked with the state opera to see if there’s anything I could do for them. (Writing, publicity, program notes, etc.) I’ve always taken it for granted that there was no possibility. Most of us do that, and we are blind to the opportunities right in front of us. The book drove this home, but again, it’s much more than tips. Some of the people Bronson interviews have not figured out the answer to the question. Some have had their dreams fall short of expectations. But by telling their story and adding some insightful commentary, free of sentimentality or bombast, the author manages to show you the world from a whole different perspective. I felt doors were opening for me with each new chapter.

The book’s not perfect. Bronson has a tendency to generalize, and although he says the interviews are with “ordinary people,” many don’t really fit into that category — few are ordinary 9-to-6 workers in the rat race like me. But all in all, I am finding this one of the most worthwhile books I’ve read in a long time. It’s a trite thing to say, and it’s too early to really know, but I have a feeling it’s changed my life.

Their release was pretty predictable, as this was becoming a thorn in the government’s side. As to whether they truly showed “repentance,” I’m a little skeptical.

“Ding Zilin and others have been detained based on evidence that they have participated in illegal activities sponsored by overseas forces,” China’s official Xinhua news agency reported on Friday, quoting police.

“They were released by police after being admonished and showing repentance,” it said.

In an outspoken statement, Amnesty International has condemned the arrest in China of three mothers of victims of Tiananmen Square in 1989. The arrests came just days before China released with much fanfare its “white paper” on the great progress the country has made in recent years on human rights.

In Amnesty International’s view the arbitrary detention of three women closely associated with the events of 4 June 1989 is indicative that the Chinese government is still to fully address the concerns in China and abroad over the events of 4 June 1989. This is underlined by the fact that dozens of people remain in prison for participating in those protests. Reports that Ding Zilin, Zhang Xianling and Huang Jinping were arbitrarily detained having recorded interviews to be shown at the on-going meeting of the Unites Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, confirms the Chinese government’s continuing reluctance to address these concerns.

Amnesty International urges the Chinese government to abide by the recent constitutional amendment to “respect and protect human rights” and to release Ding Zilin, Zhang Xianling and Huang Jinping.

For years the women have campaigned peacefully on behalf of victims of the 1989 crackdown, and their arrest appears to be arbitrary.

The more things change…?