whutthapho

Do your in-laws have other children, grand-children living in China? Or is your wife their only child?

jin, what is your answer? who would you save? your husband or children, and please, only 1. husband of course, then can make more children . My son of course, only one of him but millions of women to replace wifey. sperm talking ? Read chinese romance and what a husband will sacrifice for the love of his wife, or a lovers to each other, maybe never marry,its both selfice and sacrifice mixed, all I try to do is help you think chinese women I would also hope that my wife would save my son, over me. It's not "sperm talking"...perhaps just a different opinion, which is that the primary reason for marriage is to raise a family, the reason for family is to help each new generation improve its standing in the world. Both my wife & I agree that we would put our children first. Of course until faced with such a grave hypothetical decision, we'll also continue to enjoy our loving, romantic time together.

jin, what is your answer? who would you save? your husband or children, and please, only 1. husband of course, then can make more children . My son of course, only one of him but millions of women to replace wifey.

Should be an easy overcome. Sounds like INS is concerned about the potnetial for people being paid to bring someone else's children to the U.S.

Uh yeah!

just a note -- titling a thread "what needs to change in the usa" and then starting off with a sweeping generalization like "theres no trust here between people" is likely to piss off a lot of people, even many who are highly self-critical. if you care, you can avoid doing that in most cases by putting in something like "it seems to me that..." or "i think that..." i agree that americans' credit irresponsibility is a huge problem and perhaps we need to study some of the money-handling habits of chinese. but your post makes me have a gut reaction like i assume you would have if i posted a thread called "what needs to change in china" and then started off with something like "there is no concern for poor people in china." "i have ever seen" from op "i think" from op so my observations op is not about peoples credit habit but financials system control of people. the purpose of the "i have ever seen" is to emphasize how bad the situation you pointed out is, not to temper the observation. reading your comment now, perhaps i overestimated how many people would take offense to it. but still i believe more americans would listen to and entertain more softly worded critiques. just an observation. Dude...nice try but that doesn't agree with the MO...Step 1 (stir the pot) - make extreme statements or attack US culture. Step 2 (folks get riled up)- Sit back and read the responses. Step 3 (it's all your fault for "misunderstanding") - later clarify (or have others clarify) the OP's intent.

Actually, it is not illegal to refuse "cash". There are a few stores that do it; especially in high crime areas. They can't force you to use "their" credit card, but they can refuse cash and insist that you pay with a debit card. I stand corrected...cash or cash equivalent (money order, check, debit card) but not forcing consumer to take out a loan or use an interest fee credit card. Question: Can a company refuse payment with cash? A new policy became effective stating they will only accept money orders, and credit/debit. i was advise if i take cash they will tell me to get a money order. Answer: It is technically illegal to refuse legal tender (cash) for services already rendered, though it is not illegal to refuse it for services not yet rendered. Therefore, a business that accepts only checks or credit must post a notice indicating this, so that the customer is aware of the fact prior to making payment. According to the "Legal Tender Statute" (section 5103 of title 31 of the U.S. Code), "United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This means that all U.S. money, as identified above, when tendered to a creditor legally satisfies a debt to the extent of the amount (face value) tendered. However, no federal law requires that a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services not yet provided. For example, a bus line may not allow payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. Some movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations as a matter of policy may refuse to accept large bills, such as above $20, and as long as there is a notice posted and a sale for goods or services has not already been completed, these businesses have not violated the legal tender law. If the company has posted a notice about the new policy of only accepting money orders and credit/debit, they have fulfilled the requirement, and they are not required to accept cash for purchases. One advantage to the consumer in using a form of payment other than cash is that there will be a record of the payment made. For more information you can visit the Federal Reserve online.

People, in most developed countries...not only in the stupid, evil U.S.A. , make a decision to pay a fee, in the form of interest, for using someone else's money now, instead of saving their own money to use later. Both parties are benefiting from this agreement. Of course, before a company allows someone to use their money, they want to assess risk and the customer's ability to repay. By the way...it's illegal to charge someone more for paying with cash instead of using credit, it's also illegal to refuse cash...who is "forcing" people to use credit?

Wouldn't she clear U.S. immigration/customs @ Vancouver B.C. before connecting on a U.S. domestic flight? http://www.yvr.ca/guide/around/connecting.asp?id=int2usa International Arrivals to U.S.A. Departures There are two inspection processes available for International passengers transiting to U.S.A. Destinations. To find out which process you should follow, please ask your airline representative when checking in at your originating International departing point. Option 1: Allows passengers to bypass Canada Customs and Immigration. Follow U.S.A. Connections signs to the escalators and stairs going down to a single baggage carousel. An airline coordinator stationed there will ensure that you have the correct documentation to enter into the In-Transit Pre-Clearance Facility. Retrieve your baggage from the carousel and go through U.S. Customs and Immigration. Any additional passenger check-in requirements occur here. Once through U.S. Customs, drop off your baggage and enter the U.S.A. security checkpoint to your designated departure gate. You will not be required to pay the $10.00 Airport Improvement Fee. Option 2: Requires Canada Customs and Immigration clearance Follow the Canada Arrivals signs to the Canada Arrivals Hall. Proceed through the Canada Customs and Immigration Preliminary Inspection Line. To determine which carousel contains the baggage from your flight, check the baggage information display screens that are located on each carousel. Proceed to the Secondary Inspection Line, where you will hand in your Canada Customs Declaration Form. Beyond Canada Customs is the International Reception Lobby, where you can access the following services: Foreign exchange and banking services Air Canada and other domestic airline check-in counters Tourism Info Centre Cruise ship information counters You may either: Proceed through the automatic opening glass doors to the Public Meet and Greet area and follow the U.S.A. Departures signs to Departures Level of the International Terminal; Take an elevator to the U.S.A. Departures check-in area on the Departures Level of the International Terminal. Follow the U.S.A. Departures signs to the U.S.A. check-in area.

You do not you need to become passive and apologetic and give in to such behavior. If you do, you're putting yourself in a weak position to be walked on. You specifically mentioned "In the past, I had often come into get drinking water and have even tried to make conversation with the Chinese teachers in there, but usually I would get the cold shoulder, so I stopped saying hi and had no problems all semester, until today." Too bad another poster compeltely dismissed your perspecitive on the situation and suggested, perhaps you are thin skinned and arrogant (i.e. it's all your fault even though they never accepted you into their group). It sounds to me that your approach, ignoring them was working for you but not for her/them. In fact, it was working so well for you, that it resulted in her outburst. Sounds like she wanted to change the dynamic. The impression you give is that you don't believe it's possible to establish a meaningful relationship with this person/group, since they haven't attempted to accept you into the group. So, my suggestion is to continue to ignore her. If she yells again, just maintain your composure and do not respond. Stand your ground and don't concede until you receive a positive signals from the other party. Don't reward aggression.

This post has a familiar tone. Thanks for the (another) lecture.

I believe Jeffery Lebowski's approach is the best for all. - The Dude abides

You mean set aside some of boths money right ? I'm not sure what your meaning is. What do you mean by "both money"? I interpret your comment to mean that perhaps I do not realize that his money is also his wife's money. Although I'm not sure what his position is, I assumed he meant their money, since I believe that a husband and wife share everything. My understanding is that the OP (original poster) wrote about sending money from the U.S. to China. I assumed this to mean money from his (or their) primary family (including his wife and any children) to his (or their) extended family (her direct relatives) in China. When using English language, it's customary for both parties to use the same "grammatical person". Because the OP used first person singular language; "I try", "I seem" , "I get"...etc., I replied using second person singular language; "If you", "when you", "if you", "you still", "in your". If the OP used first person plural language ; "we try", 'we seem", "we get"...etc., I would have replied using second person plural; " if you guys/y'all", "when you guys/y'all", "if you guys/y'all", "you guys/y'all still"...etc.

Perhaps you could set aside money each month and keep it in your bank account, instead of sending to China. Then when you receive unexpected, yet reasonable requests, you have money available to send. If you set aside what you are willing to provide, then it's no big deal to part with it, when you receive an unexpected, yet reasonable request. If you don't receive any such requests, you still have the money in your account.

This is an interesting perception. To assume a class or group (not individual person) holds a negative opinion of you and to use that as justification to hold a negative opinion of that entire class or group. I don't think that is racist but is almost a textbook example of being prejuduce (to prejudge an entire class/group/race) and could explain the lack of understanding between different cultures, races, etc.