You mean, if she had been paid the legal amount required by law, as opposed to the -lesser- amount the diplomat - also from India, one notes - paid her? One Indian screwing over another, poorer Indian is fine?
As to the rest of your foaming-at-the-mouth rant…dude, you may want to double-check your meds. What does US immigration policy have to do with anything? Are you saying the only way she could have a better life was to … leave India?
The unwarranted and possibly dangerous measures were, for example, removing traffic flow devices or barriers near the U.S. Embassy in what was clearly a fit of pique.
This, in retaliation for New York City following the law after an Indian consular employee, who enjoyed immunity only insofar as it involved official duties (IMO lying to your host country and securing domestic help are not official duties) broke at least two laws. That means the U.S. already started on the high ground: they were not the law breakers.
Where the U.S. further climbs the moral mountain is that apparently the Indian arguments are either: the treatment given, even though it’s given to everyone else, and Whatsherface was given more consideration than the very large majority of arrestees, should not be given to an Indian from a certain class. Regardless of the fact that she broke the law. at least twice.
Or: Sure, laws were broken, but the maid is better off! So it shouldn’t count.
Or: things are different in India, and Indians should be able to act the same in the U.S., regardless of its laws. .
This puts the U.S. at the moral summit in this kerfuffle. Not because the U.S. is so great, but because these arguments are so base.
Had the Indian argument honestly been that no-one should undergo such treatment, I might be able to get behind it, especially if you can give a method where detainees are still safe from each other in such an alternative arrangement. I believe U.S. police frequently over-reacts, and more and more acts like a military force rather than a civil service. But that’s not what happened here.
Lastly, I can’t help but read in the various news reports and comments here that for a number of Indians indentured servitude, or something resembling it rather closely, is a perfectly fine way to conduct labor relations. This is repugnant to me.
Why does the US embassy need traffic flow barriers near it? Does the Indian embassy in New York have any such? ETA - Since you’ve probably never been to New Delhi, the US embassy is in one of the most heavily policed enclaves in Delhi. It is surrounded by other countries’ embassies and is generally in one of the safest areas in the country. Nothing is a 100% secure of course, but those traffic diversions sure as hell weren’t adding anything.
Morality and the law do not always correspond 1:1. Someone breaking an unjust law does not automatically start from a lower moral position. That is the nature of the argument I’ve been making - The morality of American minimum wage laws with regard to an Indian maid who becomes unaffordable under them is ambiguous at best.
The Indian arguments about her treatment have nothing to do with her class. They have to do with her function. She’s not ‘everyone else’. She’s a representative of the Indian government. Representatives of another country’s governments are legitimately not treated the same way as ‘everyone else’. In fact, they sometimes commit murder and get away with it, as Americans have done in the not so distant past.
As far as the morality issue is concerned, absolutely.
Cite.
More content free bombast.
Why should the Indian argument be about everyone? It is specifically about one of its representatives to the US, again a class that is historically and legitimately treated differently from ‘everyone’
So, having little by way of specific arguments, you decide to fall back on broader social criticism phrased as ‘repugnance’ based on nothing except what you’ve ‘read in various news reports’? Marvelous. You continue to reassure me about the quality of public opinion in the US.
No, it is not an opinion that the cost of clothing, transportation, etc. are included in evaluating the cost of living in various places. it is simply a fact.
If an insane billionaire wants to never buy clothes again, that’s his choice. If a poor grad student never wants to make a phone call home, that’s his choice. However, a couple people chosing not to make routine purchases like clothes and phone calls does not mean that those expenses should be excluded from calculations on the cost of living in various places.
If people want to spend their money in different ways, that’s fine. But it is fundamentally untenable to assert that someone can be better off in location A where they are paid more money but can’t afford the basic necessities of life; as compared to location B where they are paid substantially less money but can afford the basic necessities of life.
Is there any evidence that diplomats and consular officers from India are being treated differently than diplomats and consular officers from other countries?
No, there isn’t.
The basic necessities of life include food, housing and utilities. New clothes every once in a while, money to go to the church do not qualify as necessities. As for phone calls - those are as cheap in the US with calling cards as they are in India. No difference.
ETA: That took me 15 seconds of google to find. I’m sure there would be others. International relations work based on how countries react. The US acted ham handedly, India threw a fit. Hopefully both countries (and their representatives) will be more careful in the future.
Khobragade was a consular officer, not a diplomat. This was covered on page one. You cannot compare the arrest of a consular officer to the non-arrest of diplomats, because diplomats have immunities that consular officers don’t.
Turns out she had diplomatic immunity after all though doesn’t it? Had the US chosen to be less ham handed in its actions by communicating about the arrest, or in general being more ‘diplomatic’ about the issue, we’d be at the same stage we are now, minus a lot of noise. That applies to the consular officer’s actions too of course. That’s why I said, hopefully both countries’ representatives will be more careful about how they treat each other.
This is your opinion, not any commonly accepted definition of the cost of living.
Here’s cites for the facts as I’ve described them:
In other words, even toothbrushes and toothpaste are included in calculating the costs of living, even if YOU never brush your teeth. Normal people pay for these types of things, so they are included in calculations.
And again, Khobragade herself seems to have received a supplement based on the high cost of living in New York even though she was living rent-free.
Notwithstanding the dubious claim that she was secretly transferred to the UN Mission prior to the arrest (a fact nobody in the Indian government was apparently aware of for a few weeks, until that transfer was “discovered,” yeahright), she was subsequently ACTUALLY transferred to the UN Mission after her arrest. That seems to be the basis for her being booted from the United States.
As has been made clear on page one, consular officers are subject to arrest for felonies in the United States. The law is well known, it is publicized, and the US State Department even provides little laminated cards to police departments so officers can know what they can and cannot legally do.
They reassigned her after the arrest to create retroactive immunity, didn’t they?
Mercer’s cost of living is designed for MNC companies and governments to decide pay for expatriate employees - not for deciding what the basic necessities of life are. The comparison with someone who is poor and relatively less qualified seems frivolous to me. Again you seem to think I’m claiming that Richards was in a great position. I’m not. I’m claiming Richards was in a great position relative to her position in Delhi. This is not opinion. Even if she spent 150 USD on public transport, clothes and what have you, every month, she would still be making double the money that the US embassy pays people in similar jobs in Delhi. That’s 150 dollars that she doesn’t need to spend.
No, the US had clarified that wouldn’t work. She had been assigned as an internal consultant to UN work. Since I assume the UN would have had to have records of this, it’s probably not a lie. Could be perhaps. Dunno. The important thing is, she was immune. If it was a lie, possibly she gained immunity because the whole issue blew up so big. Any way you look at it, Bharara’s office screwed things up badly.
Seriously, this argument about whether or not the maid was better off earning 30k with room and board paid for is mind boggling to me.
The peasants have no bread to eat, so let them eat cake!
Yes, it’s mind-boggling to me as well, since everyone’s been telling you IT’S FUCKING IRRELEVANT.
You’re the one that’s been bringing up the ‘she’s better off!’ argument, as if we should thus pardon the diplomat for her illegal activities - activities that she *knew *were illegal given the lengths she went through cover her tracks.
If I went to a mystical land where my room and board were paid for, and I earned $10 million a month, would I be better off than at my current job with a decent salary where I pay for my own shelter?
Oh, did I mention that in this mystical land, a 4km taxi ride costs $850,000; an average pair of shoes cost $2.5 million dollars; a simple fast food meal costs $1.3 million; etc?
When it is not essential to either take taxis, buy fast food meals or new shoes, you can go there, come back after a month and be 10 million dollars richer. Yes you are better off. All of those things are optional
I think this argument just shows the relative privilege and wealth that Americans come from. Somebody has food and shelter and is earning triple what they would make otherwise, every penny of which can be saved or spent at Indian prices for their family if they so choose? That’s terrible. They can’t buy new clothes, or go for movies or take taxis to church! Or get coffee or haircuts! How can they possibly be better off!?
If a foreign diplomat in India has a housekeeper, do you believe that the housekeeper earns sufficient salary to buy clothes more than once every three years? If their shoes wear out, can they buy new ones? Can they afford to smoke if they have that habit?
Yes, I’m asking a serious question.
When I lived in China, I came to know quite a few people who were poor by US standards, but they would buy new clothes when they needed (not wanted, but needed), made enough to feed their huge nicotine habit, got drunk on weekends with their friends, and generally did normal things that normal people do (although they could not afford a PC, a flat screen TV, train tickets were expensive for them, etc). I would guess that their income at that time was somewhere around 1,200 RMB, or about $150 a month.
If I took them to Manhattan and gave them a place to live and food, and a $500 salary, they could not afford their smoking habit. Period. Impossible. It would be a stretch for them to buy beer and hang out with their friends. They would probably have to plan their clothes purchases much more carefully, and depend on used clothing stores.
So, my experience living in a poor country has taught me that if those Chinese people were in a similar circumstance to this maid, they would give up a lot of things that they do in China, but would be too expensive to do in the US; even though their salary was a few times bigger.
So, I think your conclusion that more money automatically means a better life is not consistent with my own experiences; but I don’t know what kind of life an Indian maid working for a foreign diplomat in Delhi would lead.
I don’t know how a hypothetical maid employed by a foreign diplomat would live. Richards apparently was employed by a foreign diplomat. Most maids in my experience make use of employer hand-me-downs for clothes.
Richards would be earning in the range of INR 10k per what the US embassy apparently pays. Her husband, who worked as a driver for an African embassy would be making something similar. Let’s extend family income to 30k to be on the conservative side. It is highly unlikely that they were making that much. She has two kids. I don’t know what your impressions of cost of living in Delhi is, but 30k for a family of four does not afford you anything by way of luxury or leisure. She would be living with her family in one of Delhi’s extremely low rent areas but still paying rent, food costs, tuition fees for her kids, school books, medical costs, uniforms and such like. If she’s aspirational, her kids would be in a private school because government schools are terrible, like anything else run by the government in India. I can almost guarantee that she wouldn’t have a smoking habit. Her husband may have had a drinking habit, may not have, he seems responsible enough to have been able to hold down an embassy job.
She would not be drinking beer on the weekends, or going to movie halls or eating out. It’s just…I don’t even know how to express how ludicrous the notion is. Not because she shouldn’t be drinking beer or anything of the sort. Just how divorced from what reality tends to be like. I used to pay a Muslim lady to cook for me at one point a year or so ago. She cooked for quite a few people and we paid much more than market rates because it was an institutional arrangement. Her husband was a drunk who would disappear often. Even when he was around and holding down a job she was scrambling to pay her kids tuition for school. She often needed loans to tide her over. She would laugh at your conception of what it would take this woman to be better off.