crystal
07-07 10:18 PM
related article on murthy for the Inadvertent Unauthorized Employment
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_hombus.html
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_nscuna.html
Actually ..I had even read somewhere in these forums, that 'out of status' etc will be considered since the last entry into the country..
in your case, if he re entered into the country in 2002, the previous status should not be considered...but we can never argue with the immigration officers,once it gets into their head,they can be the most 'sanki' guys..
take appt with Rajiv Khanna/Murthy without wasting any minute further..
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_hombus.html
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_nscuna.html
Actually ..I had even read somewhere in these forums, that 'out of status' etc will be considered since the last entry into the country..
in your case, if he re entered into the country in 2002, the previous status should not be considered...but we can never argue with the immigration officers,once it gets into their head,they can be the most 'sanki' guys..
take appt with Rajiv Khanna/Murthy without wasting any minute further..
wallpaper Mazda Miata MX-5 Miata My
Macaca
09-27 12:06 PM
In defense of lobbying (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/in-defense-of-l.html) This country?s Founders actually set up a system to encourage the petitioning of government. And yes, like it or not, that means lobbyists have the same claims to the First Amendment as our free press does By Ross K. Baker | USA Today, sep 27, 2007
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
There was a moment in one of the recent Democratic debates in which former senator John Edwards practically accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of being in league with the devil. For some time, he had been attacking her for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Now, using the occasion of a just-passed lobbying reform bill awaiting the signature of a skeptical president, he exceeded even his previous needling of her by suggesting guilt-by-association. Turning to the audience, he charged that lobbyists, such as those who contribute to Clinton, "rig the system against all of you (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html?_r=1&ex=1187841600&en=a9c739db3da26fdf&ei=5070&oref=slogin)."
Edwards' accusations deftly played into a belief common even among well-educated Americans that lobbying, if not actually illegal, is a blot on American politics. The problem with this belief is that it is misinformed.
It might come as a surprise to most people that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602251.html) under the hallowed First Amendment. After the Founding Fathers cast the cloak of protection over freedom of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble, they added a category that could not be infringed upon by the federal government: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)."
Few contemporary efforts to influence government action come by way of a formal petition. But the idea of giving citizens access to government was seen by the writers of the Constitution as something worth safeguarding. And it is, indeed, worth safeguarding because every group in America, at one time or another, has got a gripe and turns to Congress or the federal bureaucracy.
Groups engaged in activities that might seem wholly unconnected with politics, such as the American Automobile Association (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_H.htm) (the folks who get your car started on cold mornings), maintain a presence in Washington to monitor what goes on in Congress. When lawmakers and congressional staffers return from their summer recess, the army of lobbyists storms Washington alongside them.
Religious and military organizations, despite the apolitical nature of our armed forces and the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, stick very close to Congress. So close are the Methodists (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=gpYbdG8nTTbstJWZbHF4nQ%3d%3d&longitude=UTH%2fxgxU3NJ%2fZzEipoIpSw%3d%3d&name=General%20Board%2dGlbl%20Ministries&country=US&address=100%20Maryland%20Ave%20NE%20%23%20315&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d548%2d4002&spurl=0&&q=The%20United%20Methodist%20General%20Board%20of% 20Church%20and%20Society&qc=%28All%29%20Places%20Of%20Worship) and the Reserve Officers Association (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=2jypmtPMGHqb5z8DqMKpow%3d%3d&longitude=CIpOYIVGteZ%2bBzAf6jdV1Q%3d%3d&name=Reserve%20Officers%20Assn%20of%20US&country=US&address=101%20Constitution%20Ave%20NE&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d479%2d2221&spurl=0&&q=Reserve%20Officers%20Association&qc=Associations) that their Washington offices literally overlook the Senate office buildings.
To be sure, the vast bulk of the roughly 35,000 lobbyists in town represent businesses and industries. Nonetheless, as citizens of a commercial republic, should this really surprise us?
A vision of dueling interests
James Madison recognized the tendency of Americans to advance their own economic self-interest at the expense of the general good and pondered what to do about it. He dismissed (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm) the possibility of banning these "factions," arguing that they are a byproduct of our freedom.
His solution was just to allow them to multiply and, as the country expanded, no single interest would dominate. Free to struggle for influence, they would checkmate each other.
What Madison had not reckoned on was the vast expansion in the scope of activities of the federal government over the next 200 years.
As the government expanded, it has affected the lives and livelihoods of more people. They, in turn, want to ensure that government action does not harm them. Even better, they look to an expansive government to benefit them. So if the federal government gets into the business of building dams, they want to supply the cement. If Washington decides to prop up farm prices with subsidies, as it first did in the 1930s (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html), you want to make sure your commodity gets its share.
People of the revolutionary generation probably imagined that individuals would make their way to Washington to personally make their case for government help. They could not have imagined the hordes of surrogates, many of them receiving princely sums, who would take up residence in the nation's capital and subsist on pressing the cases of others. The idea that a professional advocate such as Jack Abramoff would be corruptly influencing the federal government would have been altogether inconceivable to James Madison.
The good with the bad
The defect in Madison's architecture is not that interest groups would proliferate, but that there would be such an imbalance between those seeking to get or maintain private gain and those advocating for the needs of humbler people. There are, of course, multitudes of lobbyists who advocate the needs of the handicapped, the elderly and endangered species, but they are often out-gunned by trade associations and industry lobbyists.
The defeat in the House of the recent effort to require U.S. automakers to boost the fuel economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079816/) of their cars is eloquent testimony to the clout of business. On the other hand, the high rollers who pushed for the elimination of the inheritance tax (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273376_estatewash09.html) received a stinging rebuke when the repeal that they favored was defeated in the Senate. The big boys don't always get what they want, especially when the focus of the media puts the issue out in the open.
There are in lobbying, as in other enterprises, noble and degraded examples. So you have the Children's Defense Fund pushing for an expansion (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/childhealth/) of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan and a smug and arrogant Abramoff manipulating the Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-tribes-giving_x.htm) on behalf of his well-heeled clients.
Both are lobbying. Even so, it would be as unfair to assume that all lobbyists are like Jack Abramoff as it would be to liken all physicians to Jack Kevorkian.
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
There was a moment in one of the recent Democratic debates in which former senator John Edwards practically accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of being in league with the devil. For some time, he had been attacking her for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Now, using the occasion of a just-passed lobbying reform bill awaiting the signature of a skeptical president, he exceeded even his previous needling of her by suggesting guilt-by-association. Turning to the audience, he charged that lobbyists, such as those who contribute to Clinton, "rig the system against all of you (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html?_r=1&ex=1187841600&en=a9c739db3da26fdf&ei=5070&oref=slogin)."
Edwards' accusations deftly played into a belief common even among well-educated Americans that lobbying, if not actually illegal, is a blot on American politics. The problem with this belief is that it is misinformed.
It might come as a surprise to most people that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602251.html) under the hallowed First Amendment. After the Founding Fathers cast the cloak of protection over freedom of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble, they added a category that could not be infringed upon by the federal government: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)."
Few contemporary efforts to influence government action come by way of a formal petition. But the idea of giving citizens access to government was seen by the writers of the Constitution as something worth safeguarding. And it is, indeed, worth safeguarding because every group in America, at one time or another, has got a gripe and turns to Congress or the federal bureaucracy.
Groups engaged in activities that might seem wholly unconnected with politics, such as the American Automobile Association (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_H.htm) (the folks who get your car started on cold mornings), maintain a presence in Washington to monitor what goes on in Congress. When lawmakers and congressional staffers return from their summer recess, the army of lobbyists storms Washington alongside them.
Religious and military organizations, despite the apolitical nature of our armed forces and the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, stick very close to Congress. So close are the Methodists (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=gpYbdG8nTTbstJWZbHF4nQ%3d%3d&longitude=UTH%2fxgxU3NJ%2fZzEipoIpSw%3d%3d&name=General%20Board%2dGlbl%20Ministries&country=US&address=100%20Maryland%20Ave%20NE%20%23%20315&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d548%2d4002&spurl=0&&q=The%20United%20Methodist%20General%20Board%20of% 20Church%20and%20Society&qc=%28All%29%20Places%20Of%20Worship) and the Reserve Officers Association (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=2jypmtPMGHqb5z8DqMKpow%3d%3d&longitude=CIpOYIVGteZ%2bBzAf6jdV1Q%3d%3d&name=Reserve%20Officers%20Assn%20of%20US&country=US&address=101%20Constitution%20Ave%20NE&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d479%2d2221&spurl=0&&q=Reserve%20Officers%20Association&qc=Associations) that their Washington offices literally overlook the Senate office buildings.
To be sure, the vast bulk of the roughly 35,000 lobbyists in town represent businesses and industries. Nonetheless, as citizens of a commercial republic, should this really surprise us?
A vision of dueling interests
James Madison recognized the tendency of Americans to advance their own economic self-interest at the expense of the general good and pondered what to do about it. He dismissed (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm) the possibility of banning these "factions," arguing that they are a byproduct of our freedom.
His solution was just to allow them to multiply and, as the country expanded, no single interest would dominate. Free to struggle for influence, they would checkmate each other.
What Madison had not reckoned on was the vast expansion in the scope of activities of the federal government over the next 200 years.
As the government expanded, it has affected the lives and livelihoods of more people. They, in turn, want to ensure that government action does not harm them. Even better, they look to an expansive government to benefit them. So if the federal government gets into the business of building dams, they want to supply the cement. If Washington decides to prop up farm prices with subsidies, as it first did in the 1930s (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html), you want to make sure your commodity gets its share.
People of the revolutionary generation probably imagined that individuals would make their way to Washington to personally make their case for government help. They could not have imagined the hordes of surrogates, many of them receiving princely sums, who would take up residence in the nation's capital and subsist on pressing the cases of others. The idea that a professional advocate such as Jack Abramoff would be corruptly influencing the federal government would have been altogether inconceivable to James Madison.
The good with the bad
The defect in Madison's architecture is not that interest groups would proliferate, but that there would be such an imbalance between those seeking to get or maintain private gain and those advocating for the needs of humbler people. There are, of course, multitudes of lobbyists who advocate the needs of the handicapped, the elderly and endangered species, but they are often out-gunned by trade associations and industry lobbyists.
The defeat in the House of the recent effort to require U.S. automakers to boost the fuel economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079816/) of their cars is eloquent testimony to the clout of business. On the other hand, the high rollers who pushed for the elimination of the inheritance tax (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273376_estatewash09.html) received a stinging rebuke when the repeal that they favored was defeated in the Senate. The big boys don't always get what they want, especially when the focus of the media puts the issue out in the open.
There are in lobbying, as in other enterprises, noble and degraded examples. So you have the Children's Defense Fund pushing for an expansion (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/childhealth/) of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan and a smug and arrogant Abramoff manipulating the Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-tribes-giving_x.htm) on behalf of his well-heeled clients.
Both are lobbying. Even so, it would be as unfair to assume that all lobbyists are like Jack Abramoff as it would be to liken all physicians to Jack Kevorkian.
qualified_trash
05-17 12:32 PM
gc03:
Go and search for Lou Dobbs in this forum.
This forum is purely for discussing issues related to problems and difficulties of high skilled legal immigrants., affected by inefficiency of backlog centers, LCs and lack of visa numbers, GC issues and the consequent retrogression.
I haven't gone to the link you provided, because I don't need to. Has Mr.Dobbs advocated our issues, our goals anytime in his effort to highlight immigration issues? I don't think so. He does what is convenient for him and for his ratings and viewership.
So, please let's end this discussion here and please refrain from quoting and promoting the foul mouth Lou Dobbs.
I hope you will understand. Thanks.
Why are members on this forum so eager to ask others to refrain from this or refrain from that? Are we all not adults leading professionally successful lives. Can we all not have a discussion with varying points of view? I am asking someone - WAIT - begging someone from the core group to ask everyone to stop doing this? What use are our degrees and experience if we cannot listen to dissent? I would like to call this 'EDUCATED ILLITERACY' if I may.
The question posed by the other user was rhetorical in nature. I am not sure why he should understand and refrain. I think the others should either agree/disagree/no comment with him and refrain from asking him to keep quiet.
Go and search for Lou Dobbs in this forum.
This forum is purely for discussing issues related to problems and difficulties of high skilled legal immigrants., affected by inefficiency of backlog centers, LCs and lack of visa numbers, GC issues and the consequent retrogression.
I haven't gone to the link you provided, because I don't need to. Has Mr.Dobbs advocated our issues, our goals anytime in his effort to highlight immigration issues? I don't think so. He does what is convenient for him and for his ratings and viewership.
So, please let's end this discussion here and please refrain from quoting and promoting the foul mouth Lou Dobbs.
I hope you will understand. Thanks.
Why are members on this forum so eager to ask others to refrain from this or refrain from that? Are we all not adults leading professionally successful lives. Can we all not have a discussion with varying points of view? I am asking someone - WAIT - begging someone from the core group to ask everyone to stop doing this? What use are our degrees and experience if we cannot listen to dissent? I would like to call this 'EDUCATED ILLITERACY' if I may.
The question posed by the other user was rhetorical in nature. I am not sure why he should understand and refrain. I think the others should either agree/disagree/no comment with him and refrain from asking him to keep quiet.
2011 1999 Mazda Miata Mx5
unitednations
07-09 11:06 AM
I read these desperate cases where a whole lot of IV'ers try to help with their best understanding of Immigration Law. Including veterans like UN and others who have been through hoops, successes and failures in assesing a particular case.
My personal understanding is that NO 2 two cases are identical for USCIS and there is a term "Officer Discretion" which comes into play a lot. This Discretion is more positive to the applicant when a case is prepared prefessionaly and a little negative when done without care.
Also even though the individual affected tries to provide the information to get the best solution does not mean he/she has provided 100% information based on facts of the case. There could be something missed out easily just because that does not ring the bell for the person submitting the information or simply because the information is too private and not appropriate on a public forum.
My point is these forums are not meant for a realistic solution to a complicated issue like the one on this thread. Please get a good attorney and that does not only mean Murthy or Khanna. There are tons of attorneys available both good and competent and affordable and who may have a solution which appeals USCIS officer.
Best of Luck.
This is very correct. Usually; when people post an issue they are only giving 20% of the story and there are more twists and turns that they are not disclosing and in our over zealousness to advise/post; we go through various scenarios.
In my experience; uscis does not by default give a person a tough time. However; if there is a history (ie., denials); then they seem to go a little further into it.
In my own case; when I had to go to local office interview; the list of documents that the officer asked for me was pretty extensive and basically outside the law. However; he still asked for those things (ie., tax returns; w2's from 1999 through 2006 (as an example)); He was really reaching in what he asked for. If I didn't have these things; then there is a possibility that a person may fake some of these things and then uscis tries to trap you. However; 245k; ead, etc.; future job offer has a lot of protections for us. It's never good to fake things; especially when most of the time it isn't necessary.
My personal understanding is that NO 2 two cases are identical for USCIS and there is a term "Officer Discretion" which comes into play a lot. This Discretion is more positive to the applicant when a case is prepared prefessionaly and a little negative when done without care.
Also even though the individual affected tries to provide the information to get the best solution does not mean he/she has provided 100% information based on facts of the case. There could be something missed out easily just because that does not ring the bell for the person submitting the information or simply because the information is too private and not appropriate on a public forum.
My point is these forums are not meant for a realistic solution to a complicated issue like the one on this thread. Please get a good attorney and that does not only mean Murthy or Khanna. There are tons of attorneys available both good and competent and affordable and who may have a solution which appeals USCIS officer.
Best of Luck.
This is very correct. Usually; when people post an issue they are only giving 20% of the story and there are more twists and turns that they are not disclosing and in our over zealousness to advise/post; we go through various scenarios.
In my experience; uscis does not by default give a person a tough time. However; if there is a history (ie., denials); then they seem to go a little further into it.
In my own case; when I had to go to local office interview; the list of documents that the officer asked for me was pretty extensive and basically outside the law. However; he still asked for those things (ie., tax returns; w2's from 1999 through 2006 (as an example)); He was really reaching in what he asked for. If I didn't have these things; then there is a possibility that a person may fake some of these things and then uscis tries to trap you. However; 245k; ead, etc.; future job offer has a lot of protections for us. It's never good to fake things; especially when most of the time it isn't necessary.
more...
malaGCPahije
08-07 01:40 PM
a very nice video. Shows unity in a very nice perspective..
http://www.vimeo.com/1211060
The song is a Bengali poem written by Rabindranath Tagore.
http://www.vimeo.com/1211060
The song is a Bengali poem written by Rabindranath Tagore.
bfadlia
01-07 12:55 PM
Guys,
I urge everyone to stop replying to this thread. I see a pattern going on, you discuss anything and discussion is diverted to muslim militancy.
Please stop these type of discussions. It will only divide us.
I agree, the conflict discussed here is a political conflict. It could have been resolved much easier if all sides stopped looking at it with the religious-end-of-times lens (jews: nile-to-euphrates empire belonged to us 3000 years ago, christians: jews from all over the world must be transfered back there for the messiah to return.. and muslims: end of times won't come until jews fight the muslims and we beat them)
I urge everyone to stop replying to this thread. I see a pattern going on, you discuss anything and discussion is diverted to muslim militancy.
Please stop these type of discussions. It will only divide us.
I agree, the conflict discussed here is a political conflict. It could have been resolved much easier if all sides stopped looking at it with the religious-end-of-times lens (jews: nile-to-euphrates empire belonged to us 3000 years ago, christians: jews from all over the world must be transfered back there for the messiah to return.. and muslims: end of times won't come until jews fight the muslims and we beat them)
more...
diptam
09-26 02:47 PM
Here is my Point if we educated legal immigrant community support Barack or John ( though its a virtual support because we are not eligible to vote:))
If Barack doesn't win this 08 election economy is going to go further down , unemployment rates will spike , DOW will further nose dive , more banks will be bankrupt ( today morning WAMU broke 9/26/08) and there will be NO EMPLOYMENT BASED REFORM in such a Turbulent Job Market Situation.
Anti Immigrant Groups will scorch the phone lines and will probably gather support from neutral peoples as well and scuttle any EB REFORM if the economy is bad. Their point is Americans are Jobless and you are giving Permanent Job Permit to Foreigners and any one will buy it - how much we SCREAM and SHOUT that we already have a Job, you know !
Now tell me if you want to support Barack Obama OR John McCain - take it EZ
If Barack doesn't win this 08 election economy is going to go further down , unemployment rates will spike , DOW will further nose dive , more banks will be bankrupt ( today morning WAMU broke 9/26/08) and there will be NO EMPLOYMENT BASED REFORM in such a Turbulent Job Market Situation.
Anti Immigrant Groups will scorch the phone lines and will probably gather support from neutral peoples as well and scuttle any EB REFORM if the economy is bad. Their point is Americans are Jobless and you are giving Permanent Job Permit to Foreigners and any one will buy it - how much we SCREAM and SHOUT that we already have a Job, you know !
Now tell me if you want to support Barack Obama OR John McCain - take it EZ
2010 2012 mazda miata release
BumbleBee
03-24 02:41 PM
Again, I am not the one you should be asking to define "full-time" and "temp" type jobs. Ask USCIS or DOL or whoever is going to adjudicate your green card.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=bac7d92e8003f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : What is an H-1B?
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant classification used by an alien who will be employed temporarily in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.
As per USCIS, H1B is for temporary job
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=bac7d92e8003f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : What is an H-1B?
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant classification used by an alien who will be employed temporarily in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.
As per USCIS, H1B is for temporary job
more...
gc_check
04-08 06:45 PM
Hi pitha,
Thanks for posting this info. Could you please share the source of this information?
None of us should take this bill lightly. There is a saying - "one should never watch sausage or law being made". The guys who vote on the bills, in most instances, don't actually know what they are voting on. Most lawmakers may vote in favor of this bill as the anti-lobby is warpping this bill around a message "this bill is to enhance protections for American workers, so are you going to vote against American workers?" As such most lawmakers could vote in favor of this bill. The current environment is very dangerous where most people watch news in the sound-bites and half of the Senate is running for President. In such an environment, if you ask Obama, Hilary, Dodd, McCain etc., they are all likely to vote in favor of this bill, without going into the nuances and actual implications of this bill. None of these guys would want to be headlines saying something like ?Obama is against American Works?. No one will actually care to look at the long term implication of such a bill whereby most of the IT jobs will be outsourced.
From tomorrow, we should all email and inform everybody that we can, including our employers. What is the direction from IV core? We are all waiting for the matching orders??.
There was some discussion about H1B Program in CNN's Lou Dobbs program today and not surprised, as usual it was all against H1B... He had people form Programmers Guild speak and they mentioned about this Durbin-Grassley Bill and he also mentioned that in the house a similar Bill will be introduced by Congressman Bill Pascrell.
http://www.pascrell.house.gov/
Looks like, the Anit-Immigration / Anti- H1B/L1 are executing an already well planned strategy. We need to do something on this? else as someone wrote in some forum; this will be a slow-bleed and will eventually kill the h1b program. Now or never, we need to join hands and have to do what is possible to assist the core and ourselves.
Thanks for posting this info. Could you please share the source of this information?
None of us should take this bill lightly. There is a saying - "one should never watch sausage or law being made". The guys who vote on the bills, in most instances, don't actually know what they are voting on. Most lawmakers may vote in favor of this bill as the anti-lobby is warpping this bill around a message "this bill is to enhance protections for American workers, so are you going to vote against American workers?" As such most lawmakers could vote in favor of this bill. The current environment is very dangerous where most people watch news in the sound-bites and half of the Senate is running for President. In such an environment, if you ask Obama, Hilary, Dodd, McCain etc., they are all likely to vote in favor of this bill, without going into the nuances and actual implications of this bill. None of these guys would want to be headlines saying something like ?Obama is against American Works?. No one will actually care to look at the long term implication of such a bill whereby most of the IT jobs will be outsourced.
From tomorrow, we should all email and inform everybody that we can, including our employers. What is the direction from IV core? We are all waiting for the matching orders??.
There was some discussion about H1B Program in CNN's Lou Dobbs program today and not surprised, as usual it was all against H1B... He had people form Programmers Guild speak and they mentioned about this Durbin-Grassley Bill and he also mentioned that in the house a similar Bill will be introduced by Congressman Bill Pascrell.
http://www.pascrell.house.gov/
Looks like, the Anit-Immigration / Anti- H1B/L1 are executing an already well planned strategy. We need to do something on this? else as someone wrote in some forum; this will be a slow-bleed and will eventually kill the h1b program. Now or never, we need to join hands and have to do what is possible to assist the core and ourselves.
hair Cold air intake vs hot Air
Macaca
09-24 04:30 PM
How To Write To Congress (http://consumerist.com/consumer/your-government/how-to-write-to-congress-302775.php) BY CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER | Consumerist, SEP 23 2007
Writing to Congress is the single best way to express your view on public policy. The average consumer has a surprising ability to influence legislation by crafting a well written missive and avoiding several common mistakes.
Why Personal Letters Beat Form Letters
Don't get suckered in by the quick and easy "Write to Congress!" form letters littering the internet. Form letters are not an expression of values; they are a show of organizational strength. If the NRA convinces five million people to send letters opposing gun control, it shows that the NRA can muster five million people to action, not that five million people necessarily care about gun laws. Congressional offices know this and generally disregard form letters.
So what happens when you send a letter?
Every office has its own procedures for tabulating constituent correspondence, but most will produce a report at the end of week breaking down how many letters were received by issue area, separating out form letters from letters sent by individual constituents.
Members treat each type of letter differently, but most look for individual letters as a barometer of their district's concerns. These are the letters that have the most influence, the ones we will show you how to write.
What Should Your Letter Say?
We adhere to the three paragraph rule: introduce yourself, introduce your issue, request action. Congressional offices have staffers whose days are spent solely on the mail, so make their lives easier by keeping letter succinct and to the point.
Introduce Yourself: There is a two-prong test for determining your worth: 1) Are you a constituent? 2) Are you an important constituent? Feel free to puff up your chest. Are you a lifelong member of the district? Are you associated with community groups? Say so! Convince the reader that yours is a voice of experience and wisdom.
Be specific: Don't just ask a Member to oppose mandatory binding arbitration agreements. Ask them to rush to the floor to support S.1782, The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007.
Marshall Facts: Your argument - and you are making an argument - must be supported by facts. Feel free to use facts gleaned from us or other sources, but don't copy and paste paragraphs of pre-written text from form letters. Personal experiences are particularly effective, and often moving. Share them!
Be Exceedingly Polite, Please: Congress attracts haughty personalities. Staffers don't appreciate being spoken down to or insulted. You are trying to rally them to your cause, so be nice!
Clearly State Your Request: Plainly tell your representative that you want them to support or oppose a certain bill. If you want a response, explicitly (but politely!) ask for one.
It should go without saying that your letter should follow all formal style guidelines, such as a return name and address, and should be free of spelling and grammatical errors.
Send Your Letter To The Right Place
Only write to your representatives. You have three: one Representative in the House, and two Senators. Do not send more than three letters. Some citizens try to get their voice heard by writing to all 435 members of the House. Congressional courtesy compels the 434 Members who do not represent the zealot to forward his letter to the one lucky Member who does. This angers the Member's staff greatly at the expense of any point you are trying to make.
The addresses for your Representatives and Senators are available online, but don't waste your time with an email. Letters carry significantly more weight. Send your letter to the Capitol, where the legislative staff is based, though it will take a while to arrive since all incoming Congressional mail is irradiated thanks to those still-unidentified Anthrax mailers.
For an even greater impact, send your letter care of the staffer covering the issue. These staffers - called Legislative Assistants - are the Member's eyes and ears on their assigned issue areas. Finding the staffer destined to read your letter is easy: call the Capitol switchboard (open 24 hours a day!) at (202) 224-3121, ask for your Member's office, and ask the person who answers for the name of the staffer handling the issue area or bill number. Once you get that name, address your letter like this:
Member Of Congress
c/o Staffer
Office Building/Number
Washington, DC 20515
What Should You Expect In Return?
Depends. There are 535 Congressional offices and each handles constituent correspondence differently. The vast majority respond to letters with either a form letter pre-written by a Legislative Assistant, or with a more personal response written by a Legislative Correspondent. Controversial issues that attract many letters normally receive a form letter response, while smaller issues or specific questions often receive the attention of a personalized response.
Conclusion
Members of Congress work for you. Without your votes, they won't stay in office. They go to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with you, their boss. Very few people take the time to write to a Member of Congress, so the few that do carry a disproportionate influence.
Fifteen minutes is well worth the time to influence a $2 trillion enterprise.
Writing to Congress is the single best way to express your view on public policy. The average consumer has a surprising ability to influence legislation by crafting a well written missive and avoiding several common mistakes.
Why Personal Letters Beat Form Letters
Don't get suckered in by the quick and easy "Write to Congress!" form letters littering the internet. Form letters are not an expression of values; they are a show of organizational strength. If the NRA convinces five million people to send letters opposing gun control, it shows that the NRA can muster five million people to action, not that five million people necessarily care about gun laws. Congressional offices know this and generally disregard form letters.
So what happens when you send a letter?
Every office has its own procedures for tabulating constituent correspondence, but most will produce a report at the end of week breaking down how many letters were received by issue area, separating out form letters from letters sent by individual constituents.
Members treat each type of letter differently, but most look for individual letters as a barometer of their district's concerns. These are the letters that have the most influence, the ones we will show you how to write.
What Should Your Letter Say?
We adhere to the three paragraph rule: introduce yourself, introduce your issue, request action. Congressional offices have staffers whose days are spent solely on the mail, so make their lives easier by keeping letter succinct and to the point.
Introduce Yourself: There is a two-prong test for determining your worth: 1) Are you a constituent? 2) Are you an important constituent? Feel free to puff up your chest. Are you a lifelong member of the district? Are you associated with community groups? Say so! Convince the reader that yours is a voice of experience and wisdom.
Be specific: Don't just ask a Member to oppose mandatory binding arbitration agreements. Ask them to rush to the floor to support S.1782, The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007.
Marshall Facts: Your argument - and you are making an argument - must be supported by facts. Feel free to use facts gleaned from us or other sources, but don't copy and paste paragraphs of pre-written text from form letters. Personal experiences are particularly effective, and often moving. Share them!
Be Exceedingly Polite, Please: Congress attracts haughty personalities. Staffers don't appreciate being spoken down to or insulted. You are trying to rally them to your cause, so be nice!
Clearly State Your Request: Plainly tell your representative that you want them to support or oppose a certain bill. If you want a response, explicitly (but politely!) ask for one.
It should go without saying that your letter should follow all formal style guidelines, such as a return name and address, and should be free of spelling and grammatical errors.
Send Your Letter To The Right Place
Only write to your representatives. You have three: one Representative in the House, and two Senators. Do not send more than three letters. Some citizens try to get their voice heard by writing to all 435 members of the House. Congressional courtesy compels the 434 Members who do not represent the zealot to forward his letter to the one lucky Member who does. This angers the Member's staff greatly at the expense of any point you are trying to make.
The addresses for your Representatives and Senators are available online, but don't waste your time with an email. Letters carry significantly more weight. Send your letter to the Capitol, where the legislative staff is based, though it will take a while to arrive since all incoming Congressional mail is irradiated thanks to those still-unidentified Anthrax mailers.
For an even greater impact, send your letter care of the staffer covering the issue. These staffers - called Legislative Assistants - are the Member's eyes and ears on their assigned issue areas. Finding the staffer destined to read your letter is easy: call the Capitol switchboard (open 24 hours a day!) at (202) 224-3121, ask for your Member's office, and ask the person who answers for the name of the staffer handling the issue area or bill number. Once you get that name, address your letter like this:
Member Of Congress
c/o Staffer
Office Building/Number
Washington, DC 20515
What Should You Expect In Return?
Depends. There are 535 Congressional offices and each handles constituent correspondence differently. The vast majority respond to letters with either a form letter pre-written by a Legislative Assistant, or with a more personal response written by a Legislative Correspondent. Controversial issues that attract many letters normally receive a form letter response, while smaller issues or specific questions often receive the attention of a personalized response.
Conclusion
Members of Congress work for you. Without your votes, they won't stay in office. They go to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with you, their boss. Very few people take the time to write to a Member of Congress, so the few that do carry a disproportionate influence.
Fifteen minutes is well worth the time to influence a $2 trillion enterprise.
more...
xyzgc
01-10 11:04 PM
First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
The world feels Israeli attacks is disproportionate. The recent Gaza attacks and the Lebanese attacks are deemed disproportionate. But that's the only answer to rockets being launched into Israel and the bombing of commercial establishments in Tel Aviv.
India does not attack Pakistan's terrorist camps at all.
Its another example of grossly disproportionate response!!:mad:.
Islamic fanatics come and violate my motherland at will makes my blood boil in useless rage. I'm even more appalled when Indians themselves remain insensitive of this fact and want to preach peace.
India is not Israel and Israel is not India. Israel not only attacks the terrorists but also exports weapons to India. Such a tiny nation, one of the most advanced nations in South-West Asia and takes the bull by its horns!. India imports weapons from Israel, has growing defence budget of tens of billion dollars and does nothing to stop terrorism. Its absurd!
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
The world feels Israeli attacks is disproportionate. The recent Gaza attacks and the Lebanese attacks are deemed disproportionate. But that's the only answer to rockets being launched into Israel and the bombing of commercial establishments in Tel Aviv.
India does not attack Pakistan's terrorist camps at all.
Its another example of grossly disproportionate response!!:mad:.
Islamic fanatics come and violate my motherland at will makes my blood boil in useless rage. I'm even more appalled when Indians themselves remain insensitive of this fact and want to preach peace.
India is not Israel and Israel is not India. Israel not only attacks the terrorists but also exports weapons to India. Such a tiny nation, one of the most advanced nations in South-West Asia and takes the bull by its horns!. India imports weapons from Israel, has growing defence budget of tens of billion dollars and does nothing to stop terrorism. Its absurd!
hot Engine Specs (stock refreshed
Pagal
06-05 03:00 PM
This is your justification for renting? ....Which is why you will always be paying owners like me for a roof to live under.
Hello ValidIV,
Good for you that you are making some money off the real estate investments....but why generalize?
The right decision on whether to buy or rent depends on many factors including your financial capabilities, location, taxation and future plans.
For some, renting makes financial sense, for others buying! :)
Hello ValidIV,
Good for you that you are making some money off the real estate investments....but why generalize?
The right decision on whether to buy or rent depends on many factors including your financial capabilities, location, taxation and future plans.
For some, renting makes financial sense, for others buying! :)
more...
house 2011 Mazda Miata Interior Is
delax
07-13 12:56 PM
Split up of 75-25 definitely covers interest of both parties. I don't think an EB2 with PD 2007 will have grudge over an EB3 PD 2002 getting his/her GC before. As a matter of fact, as you said, looking through the eyes of governance, I don't think it is illogical. EB3 has lower preference as compared to EB2 but not zero preference! So, an EB3 2002 getting his GC before EB2 2007 is not insane, again, per my belief. You cannot say 100-0 is justice - come on!
But the same 100-0 logic can be applied between EB1 and Eb2-India. How does EB1 of 2008 get it immediately but EB2-I waits more than 4 years (speaking for myself here) -clearly preference is at play here. if that makes sense then a 100-0 ratio for EB2/EB3 also makes sense
Honestly nothing makes sense - I am only trying to derive a rationale for the spill over logic used by DOS/USCIS.
But the same 100-0 logic can be applied between EB1 and Eb2-India. How does EB1 of 2008 get it immediately but EB2-I waits more than 4 years (speaking for myself here) -clearly preference is at play here. if that makes sense then a 100-0 ratio for EB2/EB3 also makes sense
Honestly nothing makes sense - I am only trying to derive a rationale for the spill over logic used by DOS/USCIS.
tattoo Mazda Motor Corporation
wizpal
06-05 05:06 PM
A very simple, dumbed down calculation to see which one trumps the other, buying or renting:
1. Home Cost: $300,000
2. Down: $ 30,000 (10% of 300k)
3. Mortgage: $270,000
4. Mortgage Interest/yr: $ 13,500 (5% of 270K)
5. Tax, Insurance, Maintenance /yr: $ 9,000 (3% of 300K)
6. Returns on Downpayment otherwise/yr: $ 3,000 (10% of 30K)
7. Rent on a similar home/yr: $ 18,000 (1.5K/month)
8. Equity/yr: $ 15,000 (5% of 300K)
9. Savings on tax deductions/yr: $ 4,050 (30% bracket, $13.5K interest)
I'll take a home appraised and bought for 300K for my example. The numbers are basically self explanatory. Contrary to popular claim among those who are pro renting, I don't think I pay more than 3% for tax, insurance and maintenance combined (item# 5). Of course, I was wise enough to buy a home in good condition. But that number will change as the home gets older. Maintenance should not include any upgrades that you do, which is basically only "gravy" and based on owner's discretion. Item# 6; I am going with the average returns if you invested in S&P 500. Item# 7; is what a similar 300K home costs to rent. Item# 8; I have only taken 5% growth which is I think under normal market conditions is the growth you would see on your home. The principal payment has not been accounted for yet. I'll do it later.
Situation Rent:
If you rent, then your expense per year is item# 7 minus item# 6 = $15,000.
Of course, your capital of $30,000 is still earning compounded returns.
Situation Own:
Your expense is item# 4 + item# 5 - item# 9 - item# 8 = $3,450.
As I mentioned in the first line, this is a dumbed down cost comparator. There are many loopholes that can be plugged. All comments are welcome.
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.
1. Home Cost: $300,000
2. Down: $ 30,000 (10% of 300k)
3. Mortgage: $270,000
4. Mortgage Interest/yr: $ 13,500 (5% of 270K)
5. Tax, Insurance, Maintenance /yr: $ 9,000 (3% of 300K)
6. Returns on Downpayment otherwise/yr: $ 3,000 (10% of 30K)
7. Rent on a similar home/yr: $ 18,000 (1.5K/month)
8. Equity/yr: $ 15,000 (5% of 300K)
9. Savings on tax deductions/yr: $ 4,050 (30% bracket, $13.5K interest)
I'll take a home appraised and bought for 300K for my example. The numbers are basically self explanatory. Contrary to popular claim among those who are pro renting, I don't think I pay more than 3% for tax, insurance and maintenance combined (item# 5). Of course, I was wise enough to buy a home in good condition. But that number will change as the home gets older. Maintenance should not include any upgrades that you do, which is basically only "gravy" and based on owner's discretion. Item# 6; I am going with the average returns if you invested in S&P 500. Item# 7; is what a similar 300K home costs to rent. Item# 8; I have only taken 5% growth which is I think under normal market conditions is the growth you would see on your home. The principal payment has not been accounted for yet. I'll do it later.
Situation Rent:
If you rent, then your expense per year is item# 7 minus item# 6 = $15,000.
Of course, your capital of $30,000 is still earning compounded returns.
Situation Own:
Your expense is item# 4 + item# 5 - item# 9 - item# 8 = $3,450.
As I mentioned in the first line, this is a dumbed down cost comparator. There are many loopholes that can be plugged. All comments are welcome.
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.
more...
pictures similar in engine specs
thepaew
09-29 04:58 PM
I am an Electrical Engineer by training and I manage and lead an R&D group at an American semiconductor company. We design computer-chips that enable about 50% of the world's cellular phones.
I will definitely be moving out of the US when the Dems get elected as I do not think that they are capable of making the politically tough but necessary decisions on immigration. They are beholden to too many populist groups and will make the immigration issue a class-based fight. I've had enough of paying taxes, creating $$ & jobs for US-based companies - I've been waiting since 1999.
I am of course thankful to the US taxpayer who has paid for my graduate school tuition and board, to the US-companies that have given me opportunities that are equal to native-born Americans, and to my American friends for their friendship and hospitality. But prudence demands that I hedge my bets and I will have to relocate to friendlier shores.
Thought I'd share my experience. Good Luck to All.
By the next Presidential Election I will have mostly gotten my green card. I know I won't be eligible to vote then, but I will still be eligible to donate to the election campaigns. I have decided right now that whatever may happen I will donate to that party which makes my journey to the green card easier and faster.
I also have a plan B if I don't get my green card in next 24 months. I am a chemical engineer by education and profession with a US graduate degree in chemical engineering and more than 7 years of work experience in a premium organization in the oil, gas & chemicals industry. Everyone is more than aware how good the oil, gas & chemicals industry is doing worldwide. I very well know that I am a hot commodity in the job market in the whole world. Those who have traveled on Singapore Airlines must have seen advertisements in the Singapore airport displaying that oil and gas is their largest (next to Singapore Airlines) revenue making industry and they need qualified and experienced personnel. Job advertisements in the airport? Wow! Think why Alberta is the hottest place these days. I got an invitation from Canadian Government to apply for Canadian green card, citing my occupation. Australian Government has declared Chemical Engineering as the occupation with the highest demand in Australia due to their conventional mining and metals business and now the newly found gas reserves in north and west parts of that continent. This is my plan B. I have already secured an Australian Permanent Residency and that too in 6 months time. Hats off to the highly efficient immigration department of the Australian Government. In addition I already have 3 job offers there - one each in Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.
I have 2 burning innovative ideas in my mind - one related to biogas and carbon credits and the other related to water desalination. I have kept both of them on hold right now until I get the US green card. I know I will work on them but not sure which country gets the benefit - USA or Australia.
Then why am I sticking around here in the US? 1. I have a US graduate degree, 2. Both my daughters are born here and are US citizens and 3. I can't deny that I have started to put down my roots here. 24 more months and will not hesitate to quit USA and settle in Australia. It will be tough, but can't help it being forced to do it.
P.S. Two of my friends with similar background as mine, have left for Australia for good in August this year. They have settled in Sydney. Another acquaintance with occupation related to oil & gas, has migrated to Perth.
I will definitely be moving out of the US when the Dems get elected as I do not think that they are capable of making the politically tough but necessary decisions on immigration. They are beholden to too many populist groups and will make the immigration issue a class-based fight. I've had enough of paying taxes, creating $$ & jobs for US-based companies - I've been waiting since 1999.
I am of course thankful to the US taxpayer who has paid for my graduate school tuition and board, to the US-companies that have given me opportunities that are equal to native-born Americans, and to my American friends for their friendship and hospitality. But prudence demands that I hedge my bets and I will have to relocate to friendlier shores.
Thought I'd share my experience. Good Luck to All.
By the next Presidential Election I will have mostly gotten my green card. I know I won't be eligible to vote then, but I will still be eligible to donate to the election campaigns. I have decided right now that whatever may happen I will donate to that party which makes my journey to the green card easier and faster.
I also have a plan B if I don't get my green card in next 24 months. I am a chemical engineer by education and profession with a US graduate degree in chemical engineering and more than 7 years of work experience in a premium organization in the oil, gas & chemicals industry. Everyone is more than aware how good the oil, gas & chemicals industry is doing worldwide. I very well know that I am a hot commodity in the job market in the whole world. Those who have traveled on Singapore Airlines must have seen advertisements in the Singapore airport displaying that oil and gas is their largest (next to Singapore Airlines) revenue making industry and they need qualified and experienced personnel. Job advertisements in the airport? Wow! Think why Alberta is the hottest place these days. I got an invitation from Canadian Government to apply for Canadian green card, citing my occupation. Australian Government has declared Chemical Engineering as the occupation with the highest demand in Australia due to their conventional mining and metals business and now the newly found gas reserves in north and west parts of that continent. This is my plan B. I have already secured an Australian Permanent Residency and that too in 6 months time. Hats off to the highly efficient immigration department of the Australian Government. In addition I already have 3 job offers there - one each in Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.
I have 2 burning innovative ideas in my mind - one related to biogas and carbon credits and the other related to water desalination. I have kept both of them on hold right now until I get the US green card. I know I will work on them but not sure which country gets the benefit - USA or Australia.
Then why am I sticking around here in the US? 1. I have a US graduate degree, 2. Both my daughters are born here and are US citizens and 3. I can't deny that I have started to put down my roots here. 24 more months and will not hesitate to quit USA and settle in Australia. It will be tough, but can't help it being forced to do it.
P.S. Two of my friends with similar background as mine, have left for Australia for good in August this year. They have settled in Sydney. Another acquaintance with occupation related to oil & gas, has migrated to Perth.
dresses The Miata#39;s peppy four pulls
unitednations
07-08 10:41 AM
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
more...
makeup Rossini Mazda Miata Engines
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
girlfriend MAZDA MIATA ENGINE MOTOR MOUNT
new_horizon
01-06 02:49 PM
Israel is fully justified in responding to the rocket attacks from Gaza. How long can they show restraint by not responding to the unprovoked attacks. Do you think US will remain silent, if Canada were to lob rockets into US. Asbolutely not. Every country has the right to protect itself.
Hamas is such a coward orgn that they hide behind school, mosque, hospitals to shoot their rockets, so they really are luring israel to bomb those areas. Unfortunately innocents die...the blame should be on hamas. In fact, before bombing Israel even goes to the extent of calling and texting people in the target area to warn them before bombing. which country at war you know does that. Inspite of all these the biased media portrays Israel as the evil one. time to think. if only india shows some courage like that.
Hamas is such a coward orgn that they hide behind school, mosque, hospitals to shoot their rockets, so they really are luring israel to bomb those areas. Unfortunately innocents die...the blame should be on hamas. In fact, before bombing Israel even goes to the extent of calling and texting people in the target area to warn them before bombing. which country at war you know does that. Inspite of all these the biased media portrays Israel as the evil one. time to think. if only india shows some courage like that.
hairstyles 2011 Mazda MX-5 Miata:
mrajatish
07-08 10:07 AM
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
1. When you filed I-485, you should file under 245(K) immediately - I believe someone already mentioned that below. For derivative applications, the derivative applicant may be "out of status" for any length without any issues for AOS approval.
2. For the 6 mos period he was without pay check, does he have any proof of employment and correspondingly any letter showing that he was on vacation/leave of absense. I had a 15 day period between 2 jobs where I took time off but had no vacation, hence leave without pay but I have leave letter from my manager in letter-head (I know a lot of people do that as taking vacation between jobs gives them a fresh start).
3. Did the period length where he did not have a pay check exceed 180 days at a stretch?
Bottomline, it seems an overzealous USCIS officer is trying to find ways to deny your application - you should involve a good lawyer and get immediate rebuttal for Notice of Denial.
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
1. When you filed I-485, you should file under 245(K) immediately - I believe someone already mentioned that below. For derivative applications, the derivative applicant may be "out of status" for any length without any issues for AOS approval.
2. For the 6 mos period he was without pay check, does he have any proof of employment and correspondingly any letter showing that he was on vacation/leave of absense. I had a 15 day period between 2 jobs where I took time off but had no vacation, hence leave without pay but I have leave letter from my manager in letter-head (I know a lot of people do that as taking vacation between jobs gives them a fresh start).
3. Did the period length where he did not have a pay check exceed 180 days at a stretch?
Bottomline, it seems an overzealous USCIS officer is trying to find ways to deny your application - you should involve a good lawyer and get immediate rebuttal for Notice of Denial.
satishku_2000
08-03 05:05 PM
What exactly is the difference between current and future employments in the context of Perm labor certification and 485. I have seen people using two things interchangeably to suit their arguments. In context of finding ability to pay is there a difference in the way adjudicator looks at two things?
Ahimsa
11-13 08:42 AM
[B]... BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Microsoft's Bill Gates this week fired the first shot in the coming fight for more cheap foreign labor. Gates warning of a shortage of high-tech workers that his company needs to be competitive...
We can ignore Lou on his yet another one-sided propaganda.
But I think, if Lou is fair-minded (which he is not), he should have called Bill Gates to discuss on H-1B not Kim B.
H-1B reform is an off-topic right now for us.
Also, IV is neither supportive of or against H-1B increase.
US lawmakers already started discussing to reform H-1B with point-based system.
Senate had a hearing on Sep 14, 2006:
http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2006_09_14/2006_09_14.html
Lou thinks lawmakers do not know anything about refoming H-1B.
So, we can ignore Lou for ever.
We can ignore Lou on his yet another one-sided propaganda.
But I think, if Lou is fair-minded (which he is not), he should have called Bill Gates to discuss on H-1B not Kim B.
H-1B reform is an off-topic right now for us.
Also, IV is neither supportive of or against H-1B increase.
US lawmakers already started discussing to reform H-1B with point-based system.
Senate had a hearing on Sep 14, 2006:
http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2006_09_14/2006_09_14.html
Lou thinks lawmakers do not know anything about refoming H-1B.
So, we can ignore Lou for ever.
0 comments:
Post a Comment