desi3933
07-12 10:33 AM
My employer back in 2001 and 2002 did not pay me in a consistent way..I was paid once in every three months during the time I was in bench. I have the W2 returns from those two years which shows average income of only 29K. However I had valid visa status and h1b approval from my employer as well as employment verification letter from them. Now i am with a new employer since 2003 and do not have any problems with them and get paid regularly. After reading manub's post I am also worried if my I485 will be denied whenever I apply for it... or is there somethings I can take care of before? It is not my fault that the employer did not pay me consistently - right?
There are some serious issues here.
You got 29k salary for 2 years and still maintain that you had valid status for these 2 years.
I suggest you consult a good attorney.
______________________________
Not a legal advice.
There are some serious issues here.
You got 29k salary for 2 years and still maintain that you had valid status for these 2 years.
I suggest you consult a good attorney.
______________________________
Not a legal advice.
wallpaper Toyota Pickup
Vsach
01-09 06:19 PM
What a waste of time & energy!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Why can't we all plan a strategy to get the Green Card process going....rather waste time discussing something like this????:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::m ad::mad::mad::mad:
Why can't we all plan a strategy to get the Green Card process going....rather waste time discussing something like this????:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::m ad::mad::mad::mad:
rbharol
04-07 04:37 PM
Is IV core planning to get in touch with Compete america to find what they
think about this bill and what is their plan of action?
think about this bill and what is their plan of action?
2011 1993 Toyota Pick Up Truck
needhelp!
09-29 11:21 AM
And oh.. we already bought a house in 2002 (had never imagined that my status would still be "temporary" after 9 years of doing the right thing)
more...
bfadlia
01-06 12:57 PM
Discussion of non EB related issues should be stopped.
This form should be used for employment related immigration issues, end of discussion.
I have given you green for it.
I agree with you in principle..
but then again several thread of same sort have been running for weeks with mostly flaming content while being blessed by admins and senior members.. what makes one conflict employment related and another not much so?
This form should be used for employment related immigration issues, end of discussion.
I have given you green for it.
I agree with you in principle..
but then again several thread of same sort have been running for weeks with mostly flaming content while being blessed by admins and senior members.. what makes one conflict employment related and another not much so?
ShantiRam
07-11 11:18 AM
My employer back in 2001 and 2002 did not pay me in a consistent way..I was paid once in every three months during the time I was in bench. I have the W2 returns from those two years which shows average income of only 29K. However I had valid visa status and h1b approval from my employer as well as employment verification letter from them. Now i am with a new employer since 2003 and do not have any problems with them and get paid regurarly. After reading manub's post I am also worried if my I485 will be denied whenever I apply for it... or is there somethings I can take care of before? It is not my fault that the employer did not pay me consistently - right?
more...
gapala
12-18 01:00 PM
be it Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia,Darfur,Chechnya, Kashmir, Gujarat... everywhere muslims are killed for being muslims...noone goes to cuba,srilanka,north korea,zimbawe or whereever for watever reason...just imagine God forbid someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.
How is that they are justified killing innocent public who is not even aware or connected to any of the problems that you have mentioned in your post?
This is that age old argument and justification for terrorism... Oppressed/suppressed etc... we heard it enough. There is no place on planet earth where muslims enjoy freedom like in India. Reservation in premier education institutions/jobs. subsidized loans for housing etc. They are the only group who even have government (tax payers) funded flights to Macca every year. Still they resort to killing innocent public who are no way connected to the problems that you mentioned in the post. They are not even aware of these problems. (Wrong but easy targets).
How could you justify these crazy folks?
They intimidate people everywhere Asia/Europe and revolt against the civic society and institutions, reject the constitution demanding to allow them to follow Sharia and not the constitution. They forget that they are in that country by their own free CHOICE. They are not forced to stay there right?. They were from places where sharia is followed, they moved, due to what ever reason to civic societies and now they would NOT follow the constitution, where is the oppression here? Its their choice. They just create mental barrier for themself in the name of perverted belief system and reject civic society to look different. Its rediculous.
Again not all the folks in that group support them, but the irony is that folks who are in at the peak of that group have this perverted belief and straight forward folks / good folks keeps mum. Due to fear?
How is that they are justified killing innocent public who is not even aware or connected to any of the problems that you have mentioned in your post?
This is that age old argument and justification for terrorism... Oppressed/suppressed etc... we heard it enough. There is no place on planet earth where muslims enjoy freedom like in India. Reservation in premier education institutions/jobs. subsidized loans for housing etc. They are the only group who even have government (tax payers) funded flights to Macca every year. Still they resort to killing innocent public who are no way connected to the problems that you mentioned in the post. They are not even aware of these problems. (Wrong but easy targets).
How could you justify these crazy folks?
They intimidate people everywhere Asia/Europe and revolt against the civic society and institutions, reject the constitution demanding to allow them to follow Sharia and not the constitution. They forget that they are in that country by their own free CHOICE. They are not forced to stay there right?. They were from places where sharia is followed, they moved, due to what ever reason to civic societies and now they would NOT follow the constitution, where is the oppression here? Its their choice. They just create mental barrier for themself in the name of perverted belief system and reject civic society to look different. Its rediculous.
Again not all the folks in that group support them, but the irony is that folks who are in at the peak of that group have this perverted belief and straight forward folks / good folks keeps mum. Due to fear?
2010 1993 Toyota T100 Drivers Side
logiclife
07-10 01:33 AM
According to Lou Dobbs, all the problems faced by America today are purely a creation of immigration and immigrants.
The global warming, Hurrican Katrina, Rising gas prices, inflation, rising interest rates, slowing economy, deficits...everything is something that is purely a product of immigrants.
According to him had it not been for immigrants, everyone would have 2-3 mansions to live in, 10-20 high paying job offers, 4-5 luxury european cars. But immigrants took all that away by stealing the jobs of Americans. If the immigrants had not been sucking out the welfare from this country, the social security trust fund and the US treasury would be overflowing with money.
Goddammit these immigrants who stole the jobs of thousands of hard working lettuce pickers and meat packers and farm workers, who, had it not been for these job-stealing, flag waving, non-english speaking, country invading, sovereignty ruining, wage-depressing immigrant intrudor-invader-thief would have been millionaires by now.
When will the politicians listen to Lou Dobbs who is the only smart person left in the United States now?
The global warming, Hurrican Katrina, Rising gas prices, inflation, rising interest rates, slowing economy, deficits...everything is something that is purely a product of immigrants.
According to him had it not been for immigrants, everyone would have 2-3 mansions to live in, 10-20 high paying job offers, 4-5 luxury european cars. But immigrants took all that away by stealing the jobs of Americans. If the immigrants had not been sucking out the welfare from this country, the social security trust fund and the US treasury would be overflowing with money.
Goddammit these immigrants who stole the jobs of thousands of hard working lettuce pickers and meat packers and farm workers, who, had it not been for these job-stealing, flag waving, non-english speaking, country invading, sovereignty ruining, wage-depressing immigrant intrudor-invader-thief would have been millionaires by now.
When will the politicians listen to Lou Dobbs who is the only smart person left in the United States now?
more...
dontcareanymore
08-05 12:59 PM
What i mean is: Porting should not be an option based on the LENGTH OF WAITING TIME in EB3 status. That is what it is most commonly used for, thus causing a serious disadvantage to EB2 filers (who did not port).
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
And if you feel your esteemed queue is getting bigger you are more than welcome to leave this place.
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
And if you feel your esteemed queue is getting bigger you are more than welcome to leave this place.
hair 2001 Toyota Tacoma TRD 4X4
RNGC
06-23 04:37 PM
If you are worried about 485 getting denied then -
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
good!
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
good!
more...
Raju
05-24 03:40 PM
Nothing new. Of course the US needs to bring the bright and the best. Yes, I agree with you the US apparently doesn't have the necessary number of people with advanced degrees in science right now. I never told you to shut down the H1B or decrease the numbers. I am just saying, can people respect the other side and suggest more sensible mechanisms ? Can one understand that an automatic increase of 20% per year can cause hardship to citizens caught in a future and unexpected recession ? That's all I am saying.
Folks, this is what concerns me. We are all very educated people and we cannot have a decent conversation. Many in this thread gets angry at me. As Lou Dobbs says, that is shocking. :-)
Have a good one.
Communique
Hey do you that if something like that happens then Congress will decrease the numbers automatically
Folks, this is what concerns me. We are all very educated people and we cannot have a decent conversation. Many in this thread gets angry at me. As Lou Dobbs says, that is shocking. :-)
Have a good one.
Communique
Hey do you that if something like that happens then Congress will decrease the numbers automatically
hot Steve#39;s 1993 Toyota Pickup
Ramba
08-05 03:35 PM
Wow ! So you are saying that no one qualifies for EB2 after 2004 !
I kindly disagree.
I am not saying no one qualified. Most of the Eb3 jobs requirements were modified to EB2 to cut-short the EB3 line. Then, why every employer (particularly in IT) files EB2 LC, than EB3 after 2005? Why does DOL is autiting EB2 requirements for IT/Engineering jobs now?. Before 2004, even if employers requires MS+4 years or BS+8 years DOL approves the LC. Why they don't do now? It is just everyone wants to go for EB2, if they have that qualification.
I kindly disagree.
I am not saying no one qualified. Most of the Eb3 jobs requirements were modified to EB2 to cut-short the EB3 line. Then, why every employer (particularly in IT) files EB2 LC, than EB3 after 2005? Why does DOL is autiting EB2 requirements for IT/Engineering jobs now?. Before 2004, even if employers requires MS+4 years or BS+8 years DOL approves the LC. Why they don't do now? It is just everyone wants to go for EB2, if they have that qualification.
more...
house 1993 Toyota Pickup 4X4 White
pthoko
07-10 10:07 PM
Hi UN,
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
tattoo Retired my 1993 Toyota pickup
gsc999
04-07 03:35 PM
The deeper question is why are Senator Durbin and Senator Grassley pushing so hard for outsourcing, which will be the final outcome of this bill. If American companies can't hire local H1-Bs they will go somewhere else. I am going to call their office after the Easter break and ask for their response.
more...
pictures 1993 TOYOTA TACOMA � GAS
desi3933
08-05 03:39 PM
Don't remember exactly, I can look into the wording of the law but I think post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 is a law and not Memo.
Incorrect. Law does not mention 5 years. It simply says advanced degrees or their equivalent. Read for yourself (again!)
----------------------------------------------------------------
INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS
Sec. 203. [8 U.S.C. 1153]
....
....
....
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, an d whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
.....
Incorrect. Law does not mention 5 years. It simply says advanced degrees or their equivalent. Read for yourself (again!)
----------------------------------------------------------------
INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS
Sec. 203. [8 U.S.C. 1153]
....
....
....
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, an d whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
.....
dresses 1993 Toyota T100 owners manual
unitednations
08-02 02:17 PM
Definitely so. The fundamental problems of visa numbers and national quota remain and I think the next few months are going to be hell because of this stupid decision to rescind the July bulletin and allow everybody to apply for the I-485. How does one travel in an emergency after the I-485 is filed for but the receipt has not been received?
Once 485 is filed you can leave and re-enter the country if you have H or L visa.
You don't need to wait for the actual receipt.
Problem occurs if you leave before august 17th; thinking that lawyer has sent the case when he really hasn't and you were out when ucis receives the package. Eventually; uscis would figure it out and could deny the case becuase of this.
Also, not wise to leave before august 17th; because if the package gets returned for whatever reason then you need to be here to send it in again and you would have to update with new passport pages with stamps and i-94 card and date of last entry, etc.
I understand that people have to go out on business but they are unnecessary complications that people are doing.
Once 485 is filed you can leave and re-enter the country if you have H or L visa.
You don't need to wait for the actual receipt.
Problem occurs if you leave before august 17th; thinking that lawyer has sent the case when he really hasn't and you were out when ucis receives the package. Eventually; uscis would figure it out and could deny the case becuase of this.
Also, not wise to leave before august 17th; because if the package gets returned for whatever reason then you need to be here to send it in again and you would have to update with new passport pages with stamps and i-94 card and date of last entry, etc.
I understand that people have to go out on business but they are unnecessary complications that people are doing.
more...
makeup 1993 Toyota Pickup 2 Dr STD
unitednations
07-19 02:29 PM
UN,
Sorry for sending the PM.
This link was provided in another thread regarding H1B status. Not entirely sure what it means.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : Must an H-1B alien be working at all times?
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
first i'll tell a brief story.
I am a chain smoker. my brother is a ph.d who researches cancer. He told me I would die one day of cancer (thanked him for that advice). I told him that you gotta die one day.
he is the only person who had this comeback. He said that is what everyone says until they are on their death bed.
now; why is this story relevant? How comfortable are you in arguing this. I remember a long time ago a person had this query; and he responded that he was on medical leave. USCIS came back and asked for verification with medical records. Others tried to get letters from their employers saying they had extended absences, etc. but employers won't give the letters because they think they will be on hook for payment of wages to you if they give such a letter.
It is not an easy thing to overcome or argue as one may think.
Sorry for sending the PM.
This link was provided in another thread regarding H1B status. Not entirely sure what it means.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : Must an H-1B alien be working at all times?
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
first i'll tell a brief story.
I am a chain smoker. my brother is a ph.d who researches cancer. He told me I would die one day of cancer (thanked him for that advice). I told him that you gotta die one day.
he is the only person who had this comeback. He said that is what everyone says until they are on their death bed.
now; why is this story relevant? How comfortable are you in arguing this. I remember a long time ago a person had this query; and he responded that he was on medical leave. USCIS came back and asked for verification with medical records. Others tried to get letters from their employers saying they had extended absences, etc. but employers won't give the letters because they think they will be on hook for payment of wages to you if they give such a letter.
It is not an easy thing to overcome or argue as one may think.
girlfriend I love roll bars (56k death)
gc_chahiye
08-02 06:44 PM
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
this is interesting: If I invoke AC21, and get a letter from a new employer, they can still ask me for a letter from old employer saying they intended to hire me?? The fact that they submitted a future employment letter with my 485 and did not revoke the approved I-140 for 6 months not enough to prove that the intent remained at the end of 6 months?
Did the USCIS officer suspect fraud or something? Is there a specific legal basis for this denial? I thought past 6 months there is no dependency on that old employer (future-employment or otherwise) and all depends on your new employer and his employment letter.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
this is interesting: If I invoke AC21, and get a letter from a new employer, they can still ask me for a letter from old employer saying they intended to hire me?? The fact that they submitted a future employment letter with my 485 and did not revoke the approved I-140 for 6 months not enough to prove that the intent remained at the end of 6 months?
Did the USCIS officer suspect fraud or something? Is there a specific legal basis for this denial? I thought past 6 months there is no dependency on that old employer (future-employment or otherwise) and all depends on your new employer and his employment letter.
hairstyles 1998 Toyota Tacoma.
Macaca
12-21 10:00 AM
Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21cong.html) By CARL HULSE and ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON ? It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker?s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
?What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,? said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. ?I didn?t foresee that.?
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children?s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president?s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
?I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,? said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
?A year into ?the wilderness,? our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one ? no one ? could have predicted a year ago,? Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush?s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
?Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,? said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. ?The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.?
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. ?Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans ? that formula equals a lack of results,? said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war ? and other issues ? but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. ?That was a sad day,? she said. ?Sometimes it is just a fight where we don?t have a similar platform.?
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children?s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush?s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House?s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
?The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,? Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush?s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
?I think it?s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,? Mr. Boehner said, ?but solutions built on our principles.?
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. ?But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,? said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, ?we could have accomplished so much more.?
WASHINGTON ? It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker?s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
?What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,? said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. ?I didn?t foresee that.?
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children?s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president?s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
?I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,? said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
?A year into ?the wilderness,? our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one ? no one ? could have predicted a year ago,? Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush?s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
?Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,? said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. ?The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.?
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. ?Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans ? that formula equals a lack of results,? said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war ? and other issues ? but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. ?That was a sad day,? she said. ?Sometimes it is just a fight where we don?t have a similar platform.?
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children?s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush?s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House?s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
?The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,? Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush?s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
?I think it?s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,? Mr. Boehner said, ?but solutions built on our principles.?
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. ?But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,? said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, ?we could have accomplished so much more.?
unitednations
03-26 08:04 PM
With regards to h-1b processing; if you file an h-1b and you are silent as to the work location on the i-129 and you get an lca for your h-1b office location and then USCIS gives you an rfe for a client letter.
You get a client letter in a different location and did not have an lca for that location prior to the receipt date of the h-1b filing then USCIS will deny the h-1b saying that it wasn't approvable when filed. Therefore, because of this USCIS is essentially saying that you are only getting h-1b approval for the work location specified in the petition when it was filed. It does not include a blanket approval to work at multiple locations.
Therefore; one should always amend the h-1b for different work location. Everytime you amend; you have to pay uscis/lawyer fees and are at risk of getting rfe everytime.
With regards to greencard. You don't have to work at the location required in the labor until the greencard gets approved. Most labors state job location is "various unanticipated locations across usa". If it has this statement then you are covered and don't have to locate to the office of the company; you can work in any location.
If there is not such an annotation in the labor then to make it 100% legal you should go and work in the location covered by the labor. However, as the baltimore decision stated; you can use ac21 for a different locaiton with same employer. Therefore, if 485 is pending more then six months and greencard gets approved; you have essentially used ac21 without even knowing it.
I do know a few cases where attorney did labor in location of where persons client was located. However, if person has shifted to another location then it would be impossible to justify it legally that you will go back there when greencard gets approved because that job would no longer exist.
There are a lot of complexities involved in this. It just goes to show that on a whim; uscis can do a lot of things to make peoples lives miserable.
You get a client letter in a different location and did not have an lca for that location prior to the receipt date of the h-1b filing then USCIS will deny the h-1b saying that it wasn't approvable when filed. Therefore, because of this USCIS is essentially saying that you are only getting h-1b approval for the work location specified in the petition when it was filed. It does not include a blanket approval to work at multiple locations.
Therefore; one should always amend the h-1b for different work location. Everytime you amend; you have to pay uscis/lawyer fees and are at risk of getting rfe everytime.
With regards to greencard. You don't have to work at the location required in the labor until the greencard gets approved. Most labors state job location is "various unanticipated locations across usa". If it has this statement then you are covered and don't have to locate to the office of the company; you can work in any location.
If there is not such an annotation in the labor then to make it 100% legal you should go and work in the location covered by the labor. However, as the baltimore decision stated; you can use ac21 for a different locaiton with same employer. Therefore, if 485 is pending more then six months and greencard gets approved; you have essentially used ac21 without even knowing it.
I do know a few cases where attorney did labor in location of where persons client was located. However, if person has shifted to another location then it would be impossible to justify it legally that you will go back there when greencard gets approved because that job would no longer exist.
There are a lot of complexities involved in this. It just goes to show that on a whim; uscis can do a lot of things to make peoples lives miserable.
bajrangbali
06-05 05:35 PM
Your analysis is so spot on except for item #8 and item # 9. I have a question though.. The example you have given suits my scenario so well. I am planning to buy a house (310k ) very soon. The loan offers I have from my lender has interest rates pretty much the same for both 10% down payment and 20% down payment, 5.0 with 20% and 5.25 with 10% down payment. I can down pay 10% right away and the other 10% is also available in a risk free(can withdraw without penalty) cd which yield me a return of 3.5% . So which is better for me 10% or 20% down pay. thanks in advance.
As for buying or renting..it is more of a personal choice - to me, buying a house has tangible benefits over renting.. like a sense of entitlement to call some place ur true home and most likely a good enviroment for raising the kids. Life has phases like education, marriage, kids, job, etc..Now that I am into my 30's, I would like to see
what it feels like to have owned a home.
If I were you..I would go with the 10% down payment option. Your monthly payment would not increase much and you would have more cash safe in CD for life events.
Consider the rent you are currently paying and make a choice...buying a home should not burden you with more than 10-20% of you current rent payment. In my case I am more conservative and going with a mortgage < my current rent payment.
If it helps, here are my details:
Condo cost: 300K
Down payment: 5% - 15K
Using fed stimulus: 8K towards down payment
Total payment: 7K+closing costs
Current rent: $2200
Mortgage: ~$1500-1600
Price trend in the past 5yrs: down <20% from peak prices
Estimate living time: 2yrs min
Even if house value drops after 2yrs by 10%, the tax savings, equity, happiness would compensate more than enough for it...
I agree everyone's situation is different, but please do not make the mistake of taking a huge burden of payment if you are buying. Always buy within/below your means...
As for buying or renting..it is more of a personal choice - to me, buying a house has tangible benefits over renting.. like a sense of entitlement to call some place ur true home and most likely a good enviroment for raising the kids. Life has phases like education, marriage, kids, job, etc..Now that I am into my 30's, I would like to see
what it feels like to have owned a home.
If I were you..I would go with the 10% down payment option. Your monthly payment would not increase much and you would have more cash safe in CD for life events.
Consider the rent you are currently paying and make a choice...buying a home should not burden you with more than 10-20% of you current rent payment. In my case I am more conservative and going with a mortgage < my current rent payment.
If it helps, here are my details:
Condo cost: 300K
Down payment: 5% - 15K
Using fed stimulus: 8K towards down payment
Total payment: 7K+closing costs
Current rent: $2200
Mortgage: ~$1500-1600
Price trend in the past 5yrs: down <20% from peak prices
Estimate living time: 2yrs min
Even if house value drops after 2yrs by 10%, the tax savings, equity, happiness would compensate more than enough for it...
I agree everyone's situation is different, but please do not make the mistake of taking a huge burden of payment if you are buying. Always buy within/below your means...
0 comments:
Post a Comment