anandrajesh
03-24 03:31 PM
But many of your posts indicate you have a bias against Indians. You seem to be going hard against H1B and saying Indians are screwing H1Bs.
Isnt that true? If you are in the IT industry for the past 10 years you know it is true.
We, Indians are the ones who has mastered the art of circumventing the H1B process and screwing up the job market. Fake Resumes, Fake References, not working in the state where you are approved, somebody appearing in the phone interview and somebody else showing up in the Face to Face interview and what not.
I am not tainting the whole community here, and i am one of you. I agree that atleast 80% of us are Genuine, hardworking candidates. There are few chosen individuals(rest 20%) who did unethical & immoral things for their own good and we are the ones who are paying the price for this whole mess. You can chose to deny this fact and live in a world of denial.
Isnt that true? If you are in the IT industry for the past 10 years you know it is true.
We, Indians are the ones who has mastered the art of circumventing the H1B process and screwing up the job market. Fake Resumes, Fake References, not working in the state where you are approved, somebody appearing in the phone interview and somebody else showing up in the Face to Face interview and what not.
I am not tainting the whole community here, and i am one of you. I agree that atleast 80% of us are Genuine, hardworking candidates. There are few chosen individuals(rest 20%) who did unethical & immoral things for their own good and we are the ones who are paying the price for this whole mess. You can chose to deny this fact and live in a world of denial.
wallpaper charlie sheen winning recipes.
kc_p21
12-26 12:58 PM
I suggest that you provide your opinion on some other forum. This forum is only for Immigration matters. Learn to use it appropriately.
Thanks,
Thanks,
Macaca
12-29 07:13 PM
Rights activist's life term sparks protests across India (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/28/AR2010122802579.html) By Emily Wax | Washington Post
Street protests spread across India this week after a court handed down a life sentence to a prominent activist and physician who has long drawn attention to the country's growing economic inequalities.
In a case that has prompted denunciations by international human rights groups and scholars, prosecutors said Binayak Sen, 60, had aided Maoist rebels in rural India, visiting Maoist leaders in jail and opening a bank account for a Maoist, charges that Sen denies. Human rights activists allege that police planted evidence and manufactured testimonies, and Indian judges have criticized the Dec. 24 judgment.
Soli Sorabjee, a former attorney general, called the ruling "shocking."
"Binayak Sen has a fine record," he said. "The evidence against him seems flimsy. The judge has misapplied the section. And in any case, the sentence is atrocious, savage."
Sen, a pediatrician, has worked for decades to help people displaced by violence and government land seizures in India's mineral-rich regions. Despite the country's booming economy, hundreds of millions of Indians remain mired in poverty - a stubborn inequality that has helped fuel a deadly Maoist insurgency in as many as 20 of India's 28 states.
The ragtag Maoist rebels, called Naxalites after Naxalbari, a village in West Bengal state where the movement was born in 1967, seek to gain power through armed struggle. They claim to fight for the poor and India's marginalized tribal groups but have also been accused of widespread atrocities. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called the Naxal movement the "biggest single threat to India's internal security."
Sen, who was arrested in 2007 and was not granted bail for two years, says he was targeted solely because he was a vocal critic of the government's use of armed groups to push villagers out of mineral-rich forest areas. His sentencing comes as major economies, including the United States and China, are seeking access to India's growing markets - a sign of the country's emergence as an economic superpower.
"Anyone in India who dissents or questions the superpower script is ostracized," said Kavita Srivastava, national secretary of the People's Union for Civil Liberties, of which Sen is a vice president. "Sen's arrest is happening because this government is extremely anti-poor. Our much-praised 9 percent growth is coming at the cost of displacing millions of people with land that is being given away for mining and corporate development."
Sen's difficulties with Indian authorities have drawn global attention before. In 2008, an effort led by 22 Nobel laureates failed to secure Sen's release on bail so he could travel to Washington to receive the prestigious Jonathan Mann Award for his efforts to reduce the infant mortality rate and deaths from diarrhea.
This time, protests erupted after a court in the eastern state of Chhattisgarh convicted Sen on two counts of sedition and conspiracy, sentencing him to life imprisonment. He was found not guilty of a third charge of waging war against the state, a crime punishable by death.
A growing number of Indian intellectuals and human rights activists have spoken out on his behalf this week.
"Binayak Sen has never fired a gun. He probably does not know how to hold one," historian Ramachandra Guha wrote in the Hindustan Times. "He has explicitly condemned Maoist violence, and even said of the armed revolutionaries that theirs is an invalid and unsustainable movement. His conviction will and should be challenged."
Sen's wife, also a doctor, said in an interview that she is launching an international campaign to do just that.
"He is a person who has worked for the poor of the country for 30 years," Ilina Sen said. "If that person is found guilty of sedition activities when gangsters and scamsters are walking free, well, that's a disgrace to our democracy."
Nobel Laureates Unable to Win Release of Doctor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903578.html?sid=ST2010122803216) By Nora Boustany | Washington Post
Street protests spread across India this week after a court handed down a life sentence to a prominent activist and physician who has long drawn attention to the country's growing economic inequalities.
In a case that has prompted denunciations by international human rights groups and scholars, prosecutors said Binayak Sen, 60, had aided Maoist rebels in rural India, visiting Maoist leaders in jail and opening a bank account for a Maoist, charges that Sen denies. Human rights activists allege that police planted evidence and manufactured testimonies, and Indian judges have criticized the Dec. 24 judgment.
Soli Sorabjee, a former attorney general, called the ruling "shocking."
"Binayak Sen has a fine record," he said. "The evidence against him seems flimsy. The judge has misapplied the section. And in any case, the sentence is atrocious, savage."
Sen, a pediatrician, has worked for decades to help people displaced by violence and government land seizures in India's mineral-rich regions. Despite the country's booming economy, hundreds of millions of Indians remain mired in poverty - a stubborn inequality that has helped fuel a deadly Maoist insurgency in as many as 20 of India's 28 states.
The ragtag Maoist rebels, called Naxalites after Naxalbari, a village in West Bengal state where the movement was born in 1967, seek to gain power through armed struggle. They claim to fight for the poor and India's marginalized tribal groups but have also been accused of widespread atrocities. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called the Naxal movement the "biggest single threat to India's internal security."
Sen, who was arrested in 2007 and was not granted bail for two years, says he was targeted solely because he was a vocal critic of the government's use of armed groups to push villagers out of mineral-rich forest areas. His sentencing comes as major economies, including the United States and China, are seeking access to India's growing markets - a sign of the country's emergence as an economic superpower.
"Anyone in India who dissents or questions the superpower script is ostracized," said Kavita Srivastava, national secretary of the People's Union for Civil Liberties, of which Sen is a vice president. "Sen's arrest is happening because this government is extremely anti-poor. Our much-praised 9 percent growth is coming at the cost of displacing millions of people with land that is being given away for mining and corporate development."
Sen's difficulties with Indian authorities have drawn global attention before. In 2008, an effort led by 22 Nobel laureates failed to secure Sen's release on bail so he could travel to Washington to receive the prestigious Jonathan Mann Award for his efforts to reduce the infant mortality rate and deaths from diarrhea.
This time, protests erupted after a court in the eastern state of Chhattisgarh convicted Sen on two counts of sedition and conspiracy, sentencing him to life imprisonment. He was found not guilty of a third charge of waging war against the state, a crime punishable by death.
A growing number of Indian intellectuals and human rights activists have spoken out on his behalf this week.
"Binayak Sen has never fired a gun. He probably does not know how to hold one," historian Ramachandra Guha wrote in the Hindustan Times. "He has explicitly condemned Maoist violence, and even said of the armed revolutionaries that theirs is an invalid and unsustainable movement. His conviction will and should be challenged."
Sen's wife, also a doctor, said in an interview that she is launching an international campaign to do just that.
"He is a person who has worked for the poor of the country for 30 years," Ilina Sen said. "If that person is found guilty of sedition activities when gangsters and scamsters are walking free, well, that's a disgrace to our democracy."
Nobel Laureates Unable to Win Release of Doctor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903578.html?sid=ST2010122803216) By Nora Boustany | Washington Post
2011 Charlie Sheen Shirts - Page 2
diptam
08-05 08:36 AM
Get Lost 'Rolling_Flood' - you dont understand anything, that's why you started a post like this.
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
Friend, How many times, you need to know that even job requirements do get rigged by lawyers and employers to accommodate ppl in eb2/eb3 ...and its not jumping the line ...the person has to restart the labor and 140 in order to change the category ...u cant compare it with labor substitution (if u r comparing !!)
I'm eligible for EB2 but my employer forcibly filed me in Eb3 category. Now i'm thinking of porting from Eb3 to Eb2 after my 140 gets approved ( By filing a new PERM labor and new 140 of course )
What's wrong you see in my intentions ? Whats wrong you see in the law ?
Friend, How many times, you need to know that even job requirements do get rigged by lawyers and employers to accommodate ppl in eb2/eb3 ...and its not jumping the line ...the person has to restart the labor and 140 in order to change the category ...u cant compare it with labor substitution (if u r comparing !!)
more...
unitednations
08-14 09:17 PM
To United Nation
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
I don't see much of a problem because it was less then 180 days.
Although uscis sometimes asks for w2's in rfe's; lawyers shouldn't send them in proactively. If you are making too much in future base employment then it can be a problem. if you aren't making enough then it can cause status issues (the smart lawyers would use the w2's, tax returns, not to send them in but to see if there may be a problem in the future and try to remedy the situation now).
I know at least 25 people in the last month and a half who had status issues with unpaid time and their h-1b visas had expired. All of them went to Canada; stayed one or two days and re-entered and used auto revalidation to reset the 180 day clock.
I would tell them at high level what they needed to do but everyone is afraid of leaving the country and coming back in without a visa through canada; espeically when all their friends, relatives say not to do so. Depending on what language a person speaks; i would direct them to specific people who had done it so that they could get the most minute detail on how to do it; punjabi; telugu; hindi; gujarati, etc.
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
I don't see much of a problem because it was less then 180 days.
Although uscis sometimes asks for w2's in rfe's; lawyers shouldn't send them in proactively. If you are making too much in future base employment then it can be a problem. if you aren't making enough then it can cause status issues (the smart lawyers would use the w2's, tax returns, not to send them in but to see if there may be a problem in the future and try to remedy the situation now).
I know at least 25 people in the last month and a half who had status issues with unpaid time and their h-1b visas had expired. All of them went to Canada; stayed one or two days and re-entered and used auto revalidation to reset the 180 day clock.
I would tell them at high level what they needed to do but everyone is afraid of leaving the country and coming back in without a visa through canada; espeically when all their friends, relatives say not to do so. Depending on what language a person speaks; i would direct them to specific people who had done it so that they could get the most minute detail on how to do it; punjabi; telugu; hindi; gujarati, etc.
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
more...
sw33t
09-28 01:03 AM
Living in the US for approx. 8 yrs, I am mentally getting ready to move back to India. Just waiting to clear my debt and then move back. I came pretty close to buying a house in summer based on EB2 dates moving in Aug. and Sept. 08 but I am glad I didn't. Luckily, I am single and can take my own decision. If I had the opportunity to vote, I would vote John McCain.
Don't want to elaborate more but I have put up a blog entry for those of you who want to read more -
http://www.skappy.com
I am also exploring HSMP - Tier 1 (UK) and probably at Singapore as well (want to move closer to the shores).
I'll definitely apply for the European Blue Card once it is ratified by the EU member nations.
Don't want to elaborate more but I have put up a blog entry for those of you who want to read more -
http://www.skappy.com
I am also exploring HSMP - Tier 1 (UK) and probably at Singapore as well (want to move closer to the shores).
I'll definitely apply for the European Blue Card once it is ratified by the EU member nations.
2010 pictures of charlie sheen
unitednations
07-08 05:31 PM
united nations,
welcome back. it would be interesting to hear your views on the whole July VB fiasco and it's aftermath. thanks!
I along with everyone was pretty surprised that they moved the dates in the june bulletin; let alone the july bulletin.
The ombudsmen report had nothing new in it; he has been saying the same thing for a few years now.
Go back to June 2005 when the bulletin for July 2005 came out and it made eb3 unavailable. Any time a total category goes unavailable that means that the oversubscribed countries should not have gotten more then 7%. ROW cannot be sacrificied under the current law for the oversubscribed countries.
Back in 2005; row was sacrificied. Next time october bulletin came about; they learned their lesson and followed the law exactly the way it was supposed to be; more cases pending then approvable per quarter then hard country quota of 7%. The statistics that came out for fiscal year ended September 2006 was directly correlated to how the law is written.
This year; everything was moving the same way. the unused from ROW should be spilled over in the fourt quarter for use by oversubscribed countries. This is not my opinion but the actual law says this.
Now; when department of state moved the visa bulletin for june; eb3 row still wasn't current; which means hard country quota of 7% and no spillover from eb1 row or eb2 row until July. This can't be done on a whim; regardless of whether this may cause unused visas; it is the law plain and simple.
Now; what department of state and uscis did to correct the mistake is a great piece of americana and how the system works here. that is; we didn't expect you to make the dates current; we will lose a lot of revenue; so how can we correct the situation; to correct the situation; they need to approve enough cases to take up enough visas to go unavailable. This is what they were proabably instructed and did their best to get there.
If they didn't use up the visas then that is where the lawsuit would be won.
A big part of this lawsuit during discovery or Q&A would be how the whole visa allocation is done. If it is determined as a side issue that the spillover happened way too early and they broke the law by giving more then 7% of the visas to the oversubscribed countries then that is definitely a death blow to the people who are really being overzealous right now in the criticisms of dos/uscis.
If this does come out and i can't see why it wouldn't come out then what is uscis to do? rescind approvals? and re-allocate to rest of the world?
The unused visas is a big problem in AC21; in that it can only happen in fourth quarter and there isn't enough time to approve cases and let them go to waste.
This might be a catalyst to change the spillover and carryover of greencards from one year to the next.
----------------------------------------------------
I am of the opinion that what happened in june 2007 actually helped greatly the oversubscribed countries in probably advancing the dates for next fiscal year as many people got approved who probably shouldn't have.
However; it reamins to be seen whether uscis/dos will go to strictly following the country caps and spillover like they did in October 2005 to September 2006. If this is the case then it could be a very long road indeed for people with 2005-2007 priority dates.
welcome back. it would be interesting to hear your views on the whole July VB fiasco and it's aftermath. thanks!
I along with everyone was pretty surprised that they moved the dates in the june bulletin; let alone the july bulletin.
The ombudsmen report had nothing new in it; he has been saying the same thing for a few years now.
Go back to June 2005 when the bulletin for July 2005 came out and it made eb3 unavailable. Any time a total category goes unavailable that means that the oversubscribed countries should not have gotten more then 7%. ROW cannot be sacrificied under the current law for the oversubscribed countries.
Back in 2005; row was sacrificied. Next time october bulletin came about; they learned their lesson and followed the law exactly the way it was supposed to be; more cases pending then approvable per quarter then hard country quota of 7%. The statistics that came out for fiscal year ended September 2006 was directly correlated to how the law is written.
This year; everything was moving the same way. the unused from ROW should be spilled over in the fourt quarter for use by oversubscribed countries. This is not my opinion but the actual law says this.
Now; when department of state moved the visa bulletin for june; eb3 row still wasn't current; which means hard country quota of 7% and no spillover from eb1 row or eb2 row until July. This can't be done on a whim; regardless of whether this may cause unused visas; it is the law plain and simple.
Now; what department of state and uscis did to correct the mistake is a great piece of americana and how the system works here. that is; we didn't expect you to make the dates current; we will lose a lot of revenue; so how can we correct the situation; to correct the situation; they need to approve enough cases to take up enough visas to go unavailable. This is what they were proabably instructed and did their best to get there.
If they didn't use up the visas then that is where the lawsuit would be won.
A big part of this lawsuit during discovery or Q&A would be how the whole visa allocation is done. If it is determined as a side issue that the spillover happened way too early and they broke the law by giving more then 7% of the visas to the oversubscribed countries then that is definitely a death blow to the people who are really being overzealous right now in the criticisms of dos/uscis.
If this does come out and i can't see why it wouldn't come out then what is uscis to do? rescind approvals? and re-allocate to rest of the world?
The unused visas is a big problem in AC21; in that it can only happen in fourth quarter and there isn't enough time to approve cases and let them go to waste.
This might be a catalyst to change the spillover and carryover of greencards from one year to the next.
----------------------------------------------------
I am of the opinion that what happened in june 2007 actually helped greatly the oversubscribed countries in probably advancing the dates for next fiscal year as many people got approved who probably shouldn't have.
However; it reamins to be seen whether uscis/dos will go to strictly following the country caps and spillover like they did in October 2005 to September 2006. If this is the case then it could be a very long road indeed for people with 2005-2007 priority dates.
more...
Macaca
08-08 09:19 PM
A Shameless Congress Applauds `Ethics' Law (http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=aSwNPAuJbnbU) By Margaret Carlson (mcarlson3@bloomberg.net), August 8, 2007
To much fanfare and self-congratulation, the U.S. Congress passed ethics legislation last week supposedly making the members subject to the same standards of behavior the rest of us live by.
At almost the same time, a federal court handed down a decision involving a congressman whose office was raided by the FBI last year as part of a bribery case that included the earlier discovery of $90,000 he stashed in his home freezer. The ruling reminds us how much more Washington is like Vegas than Peoria. Under the Constitution, a congressman can protect his legislative files from being searched. In other words, what happens in your Capitol Hill office stays in your Capitol Hill office.
The ruling came in the matter of Representative William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat indicted for bribery in June. Jefferson allegedly got the $90,000 from a telecommunications entrepreneur who enlisted his help in getting approval from a Nigerian official to do business in that country.
The court didn't buy that the Justice Department did everything it could during the search to shield privileged documents, short of letting Jefferson conduct his own raid. A ``filter team'' removed any material that smacked of Jefferson's legislative duties. The court found the effort insufficient ``to protect the privilege'' of the legislative branch to be free from intrusions by the executive branch.
Shielding Lawbreakers
This means that under the principle of shielding lawmakers, lawbreakers may be shielded from legitimate law enforcement. Jefferson's lawyer Robert Trout was thrilled, saying the decision shows that every member of Congress has an ``absolute right to review his records first and shield legislative material from review.'' Federal agents get to see what's left.
Jefferson must be kicking himself. Why didn't he think to take the loot out of the freezer in his home and disperse it among the files labeled ``congressional bills'' at his office?
Consider the possibilities. Yes, it would have been hard for former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, now in prison, to keep his Louis XIV commode hidden in his office. But he could have easily stuffed any records about goodies provided by his defense contractor pals, such as the lease for his yacht ``Duke-Stir,'' into a file drawer labeled ``Hearings.''
Like the Jefferson affair, the case of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska could give a whole new meaning to the phrase Capitol Hideaway. Stevens's house in Alaska was raided last week by the FBI and Internal Revenue Service as part of a broad corruption probe. Stevens has multiple ties to businessman Bill Allen, who, since pleading guilty to bribery in May, is said to be singing like an Arctic loon.
If Only He'd Known
With the court's ruling, Stevens could have shipped anything he didn't want to be discovered to the Hart Senate Office Building for safekeeping.
Stevens and Jefferson are just two of at least a dozen members of Congress under investigation, which puts increasing pressure on the lawmakers to do something about corruption. That something, unfortunately, has loopholes large enough for a Gulfstream V to fly through.
The ethics legislation allows members to do all kinds of things -- as long as they disclose them. Want to have a fat cat contributor? Just make sure he discloses that he's bundling donations from friends, clients and employees.
Don't want to give up earmarks? You can still shoehorn an appropriation for millions of dollars onto an unrelated piece of legislation as long as you put your name on it.
`Bridge to Nowhere'
The law would have done nothing to stop Stevens from getting his ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' a quarter-mile span connecting an Alaskan town to an island of 50 people, a couple of years ago.
Gifts and free travel are banned, unless they are part of campaigning. In other words, Congressman A can't have a rare rib-eye, creamed spinach and a bottle of Merlot with Businessman B at the Palm unless it's in conjunction with fundraising. In the case of congressional ethics, two wrongs do make a right.
The reason disclosure no longer works as a deterrent is that shame no longer works. As the ethics legislation was rolling to passage, Stevens, at a private luncheon with Republican colleagues, threatened to hold the whole thing up if the ban on traveling on corporate aircraft wasn't removed. He will still be able to fly Air Lobbyist. He'll just have to pay for it at commercial charter rates.
In wanting to keep his perks, Stevens may be the most outspoken member, but he's, by no means, alone. ``Ethics'' is the one area in Congress where there is heartwarming bipartisanship.
`Culture of Corruption'
Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich and Democrat Thomas Foley filed legal briefs in support of Jefferson. When the court said the search was unlawful, Speaker Nancy Pelosi applauded. Earlier, Pelosi, who once pledged to end the Republican ``culture of corruption,'' took away Jefferson's coveted seat on the House Ways and Means Committee after the FBI raid on his office only to try to award him a coveted seat on the homeland security panel.
Some legislation is worse than no legislation. Senator John McCain, showing again why he'll never be president, said the ethics bill will delude voters into thinking things have been fixed when they haven't.
``This will continue the earmarking and pork barrel projects,'' the Arizona Republican said. ``Again, the American people will have been deceived.''
Most of the other members are chest-thumping as if they've really done something. The public would be better off if Congress had to live by the laws that apply to everyone else, criminal and civil, and at least a few of the Ten Commandments. I'd start with thou shalt not steal -- and work from there.
To much fanfare and self-congratulation, the U.S. Congress passed ethics legislation last week supposedly making the members subject to the same standards of behavior the rest of us live by.
At almost the same time, a federal court handed down a decision involving a congressman whose office was raided by the FBI last year as part of a bribery case that included the earlier discovery of $90,000 he stashed in his home freezer. The ruling reminds us how much more Washington is like Vegas than Peoria. Under the Constitution, a congressman can protect his legislative files from being searched. In other words, what happens in your Capitol Hill office stays in your Capitol Hill office.
The ruling came in the matter of Representative William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat indicted for bribery in June. Jefferson allegedly got the $90,000 from a telecommunications entrepreneur who enlisted his help in getting approval from a Nigerian official to do business in that country.
The court didn't buy that the Justice Department did everything it could during the search to shield privileged documents, short of letting Jefferson conduct his own raid. A ``filter team'' removed any material that smacked of Jefferson's legislative duties. The court found the effort insufficient ``to protect the privilege'' of the legislative branch to be free from intrusions by the executive branch.
Shielding Lawbreakers
This means that under the principle of shielding lawmakers, lawbreakers may be shielded from legitimate law enforcement. Jefferson's lawyer Robert Trout was thrilled, saying the decision shows that every member of Congress has an ``absolute right to review his records first and shield legislative material from review.'' Federal agents get to see what's left.
Jefferson must be kicking himself. Why didn't he think to take the loot out of the freezer in his home and disperse it among the files labeled ``congressional bills'' at his office?
Consider the possibilities. Yes, it would have been hard for former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, now in prison, to keep his Louis XIV commode hidden in his office. But he could have easily stuffed any records about goodies provided by his defense contractor pals, such as the lease for his yacht ``Duke-Stir,'' into a file drawer labeled ``Hearings.''
Like the Jefferson affair, the case of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska could give a whole new meaning to the phrase Capitol Hideaway. Stevens's house in Alaska was raided last week by the FBI and Internal Revenue Service as part of a broad corruption probe. Stevens has multiple ties to businessman Bill Allen, who, since pleading guilty to bribery in May, is said to be singing like an Arctic loon.
If Only He'd Known
With the court's ruling, Stevens could have shipped anything he didn't want to be discovered to the Hart Senate Office Building for safekeeping.
Stevens and Jefferson are just two of at least a dozen members of Congress under investigation, which puts increasing pressure on the lawmakers to do something about corruption. That something, unfortunately, has loopholes large enough for a Gulfstream V to fly through.
The ethics legislation allows members to do all kinds of things -- as long as they disclose them. Want to have a fat cat contributor? Just make sure he discloses that he's bundling donations from friends, clients and employees.
Don't want to give up earmarks? You can still shoehorn an appropriation for millions of dollars onto an unrelated piece of legislation as long as you put your name on it.
`Bridge to Nowhere'
The law would have done nothing to stop Stevens from getting his ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' a quarter-mile span connecting an Alaskan town to an island of 50 people, a couple of years ago.
Gifts and free travel are banned, unless they are part of campaigning. In other words, Congressman A can't have a rare rib-eye, creamed spinach and a bottle of Merlot with Businessman B at the Palm unless it's in conjunction with fundraising. In the case of congressional ethics, two wrongs do make a right.
The reason disclosure no longer works as a deterrent is that shame no longer works. As the ethics legislation was rolling to passage, Stevens, at a private luncheon with Republican colleagues, threatened to hold the whole thing up if the ban on traveling on corporate aircraft wasn't removed. He will still be able to fly Air Lobbyist. He'll just have to pay for it at commercial charter rates.
In wanting to keep his perks, Stevens may be the most outspoken member, but he's, by no means, alone. ``Ethics'' is the one area in Congress where there is heartwarming bipartisanship.
`Culture of Corruption'
Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich and Democrat Thomas Foley filed legal briefs in support of Jefferson. When the court said the search was unlawful, Speaker Nancy Pelosi applauded. Earlier, Pelosi, who once pledged to end the Republican ``culture of corruption,'' took away Jefferson's coveted seat on the House Ways and Means Committee after the FBI raid on his office only to try to award him a coveted seat on the homeland security panel.
Some legislation is worse than no legislation. Senator John McCain, showing again why he'll never be president, said the ethics bill will delude voters into thinking things have been fixed when they haven't.
``This will continue the earmarking and pork barrel projects,'' the Arizona Republican said. ``Again, the American people will have been deceived.''
Most of the other members are chest-thumping as if they've really done something. The public would be better off if Congress had to live by the laws that apply to everyone else, criminal and civil, and at least a few of the Ten Commandments. I'd start with thou shalt not steal -- and work from there.
hair charlie sheen winning tattoo.
krishna
02-21 12:45 PM
Lou dobbs, Pat Buchanan and people of that kind are full of vanity. It is wise to tune out such guys and make sure that they do not affect policy decisions in congress. I dont think policy makers care for his rant on TV.
more...
nojoke
04-21 03:43 PM
I suggest you stop looking at national level figures if you are seeking accurate information. Look at the specific neighborhood you have mind and you may find that the situation there is not exactly what is shown on CNN.
As an example the DFW area is doing alright inspite of the gloomy picture painted by the media at the national level. Used homes will take longer to sell, but it is nowhere as bad as Florida or CA. And we are not discussing selling here anyway...we are discussing buying.
The Dallas Morning News. �The housing downturn is hitting almost every neighborhood in the Dallas area. Even affluent close-in residential areas that had previously avoided declines, including the Park Cities and North Dallas, are seeing falling prices and significant drops in home sales.�
�And sales of high-end homes no matter where they are � until recently a bright spot � are sliding, too. Economists and other experts blame a large inventory of recently built speculative homes, higher interest rates for large mortgages and sellers who have not lowered unrealistically high prices.�
��We are definitely seeing a deterioration in sales across price ranges,� said D�Ann Petersen, business economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. �The high end did hold up quite well until recently.��
�Preowned home sales dropped 25 percent in the Park Cities. And prices were down 1 percent from a year ago � the first such decline in more than five years, according to North Texas Real Estate Information Systems.�
�In North Dallas, sales in the first quarter were down a staggering 40 percent. Prices were also off by 1 percent from a year ago. Median home sales prices dropped by 4 percent in Far North Dallas, and sales in that area fell by 26 percent.�
�Sales prices fell in almost two dozen of the 46 residential districts The Dallas Morning News tracks each quarter.�
�Even the most blue chip neighborhoods are having some problems. �I talked with a leading appraiser who said he was working on 16 or 17 foreclosures in Preston Hollow � they were all builders,� said longtime Dallas residential agent David Nichols. He said there are �plenty of buyers out there,� but with so much to look at, they are taking longer to decide on a house.�
�Sales of $1 million-plus homes fell by 19 percent in the first quarter in North Texas. The sharp decline follows several years of double-digit gains at the top of the local market. Sales of homes priced between $600,000 and $1 million fell by between 20 and 38 percent in the first three months of 2008 compared with the same period last year.�
��People who have a lot of money and are looking to buy the very expensive properties aren�t stupid with their money � they don�t like paying the higher cost and may be waiting for the market to respond,� Mr. Gaines said.�
�Veteran Dallas appraiser D.W. Skelton isn�t surprised to hear that the first-quarter preowned home sales statistics look a bit bleak. �We�ve seen it for a while,� he said. �The numbers are not as optimistic as some would lead you to believe.��
��Most of it is the result of builders running up values in some neighborhoods and now they have come down,� Mr. Skelton said. �It�s more a problem of price point � no matter what the location. They need to come off those prices. Their expectations were unrealistic because our market was so robust for so long.��
�All the publicity about so-called rescue plans to help troubled homeowners isn�t having an impact so far on Dallas-Fort Worth foreclosures. The number of homes facing foreclosure in the area next month is up almost 40 percent from a year ago.�
�Mr. Roddy said the number of D-FW foreclosure postings is the second-highest on record. �Back in February, we were over 5,000,� he said. �But the percentage gain this year is unbelievable when you consider that last year was unbelievable.��
�Almost 43,000 homes were posted for foreclosure here in 2007 � a record and up 10 percent from 2006. The number of home foreclosure postings has risen by 24 percent from the first five months of 2007.�
�He said he doesn�t expect to see much change in home foreclosures over the next 18 to 24 months.�
As an example the DFW area is doing alright inspite of the gloomy picture painted by the media at the national level. Used homes will take longer to sell, but it is nowhere as bad as Florida or CA. And we are not discussing selling here anyway...we are discussing buying.
The Dallas Morning News. �The housing downturn is hitting almost every neighborhood in the Dallas area. Even affluent close-in residential areas that had previously avoided declines, including the Park Cities and North Dallas, are seeing falling prices and significant drops in home sales.�
�And sales of high-end homes no matter where they are � until recently a bright spot � are sliding, too. Economists and other experts blame a large inventory of recently built speculative homes, higher interest rates for large mortgages and sellers who have not lowered unrealistically high prices.�
��We are definitely seeing a deterioration in sales across price ranges,� said D�Ann Petersen, business economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. �The high end did hold up quite well until recently.��
�Preowned home sales dropped 25 percent in the Park Cities. And prices were down 1 percent from a year ago � the first such decline in more than five years, according to North Texas Real Estate Information Systems.�
�In North Dallas, sales in the first quarter were down a staggering 40 percent. Prices were also off by 1 percent from a year ago. Median home sales prices dropped by 4 percent in Far North Dallas, and sales in that area fell by 26 percent.�
�Sales prices fell in almost two dozen of the 46 residential districts The Dallas Morning News tracks each quarter.�
�Even the most blue chip neighborhoods are having some problems. �I talked with a leading appraiser who said he was working on 16 or 17 foreclosures in Preston Hollow � they were all builders,� said longtime Dallas residential agent David Nichols. He said there are �plenty of buyers out there,� but with so much to look at, they are taking longer to decide on a house.�
�Sales of $1 million-plus homes fell by 19 percent in the first quarter in North Texas. The sharp decline follows several years of double-digit gains at the top of the local market. Sales of homes priced between $600,000 and $1 million fell by between 20 and 38 percent in the first three months of 2008 compared with the same period last year.�
��People who have a lot of money and are looking to buy the very expensive properties aren�t stupid with their money � they don�t like paying the higher cost and may be waiting for the market to respond,� Mr. Gaines said.�
�Veteran Dallas appraiser D.W. Skelton isn�t surprised to hear that the first-quarter preowned home sales statistics look a bit bleak. �We�ve seen it for a while,� he said. �The numbers are not as optimistic as some would lead you to believe.��
��Most of it is the result of builders running up values in some neighborhoods and now they have come down,� Mr. Skelton said. �It�s more a problem of price point � no matter what the location. They need to come off those prices. Their expectations were unrealistic because our market was so robust for so long.��
�All the publicity about so-called rescue plans to help troubled homeowners isn�t having an impact so far on Dallas-Fort Worth foreclosures. The number of homes facing foreclosure in the area next month is up almost 40 percent from a year ago.�
�Mr. Roddy said the number of D-FW foreclosure postings is the second-highest on record. �Back in February, we were over 5,000,� he said. �But the percentage gain this year is unbelievable when you consider that last year was unbelievable.��
�Almost 43,000 homes were posted for foreclosure here in 2007 � a record and up 10 percent from 2006. The number of home foreclosure postings has risen by 24 percent from the first five months of 2007.�
�He said he doesn�t expect to see much change in home foreclosures over the next 18 to 24 months.�
hot is Charlie+sheen+shirts
gveerab
03-23 02:35 AM
First sounded funny, then it made helluva sense.
I suggest to go ahead and buy. I bought a townhome in California. I have been working here from last 8 yrs and thought enough is enough and bought the house.
if you have plan to stay here for more than 5 yrs you should not wait.
I suggest to go ahead and buy. I bought a townhome in California. I have been working here from last 8 yrs and thought enough is enough and bought the house.
if you have plan to stay here for more than 5 yrs you should not wait.
more...
house Charlie Sheen | Agent3155
GCScrewed
07-13 09:27 PM
I hope you get your GC soon. As for me its 'wait until dark'. It'll come some day.
And NO I am not an IT EB2. I am a non-STEM MBA in Finance who does not pratice engineering anymore.
Between an MBA and Pharmacist, of course the pharmacist is more valuable. So is a nurse.
And NO I am not an IT EB2. I am a non-STEM MBA in Finance who does not pratice engineering anymore.
Between an MBA and Pharmacist, of course the pharmacist is more valuable. So is a nurse.
tattoo everywhere – Hot Topic,
xyzgc
12-23 01:50 PM
I am sure that once muslim community or for that matter any community prospers the radicalism reduces. Unfortunately the religious muslim leaders dont want the community to get educated, prosper and westernized because than they would loose control..its precisely for this reason that the religious leaders of this community have for centuries scared the followers of the community with gods wrath if they changed. The Muslim religion has to become progressive and moderate.
About the terrorism was thinking what options does India have to fight against this. Yes military action definitely is an option but it does more harm to India than to Pakistan. Attacking Pakistan, India has a lot to loose while Pakistan has nothing loose. It would make Pakistan from a failing state to a failed state, but would put India years behind as far as economy is concerned and create the biggest headache for India for decades to come. A military confrontation and weakening of Pakistan’s military establishment would let Pakistan slip fully into the hands of Religious fanatics and produce million more terrorist who will be a long-term headache for India.
If one back goes back in the history, Pakistan has lost a lot more than India in the last three wars, and that is the only reason why the establishment in Pakistan including the Military has preferred encouraging and sponsoring cross border terrorism which is of very little cost to Pakistan but a constant headache to India. India has lost more from these terrorist attacks including Kargil war than they would if they had gone through a one time direct confrontation. I personally feel that if India does decide to go in for a military confrontation it has to be long term strategy to occupy the country and wipe out terrorism and help to nurture the economy so that prosperity and wealth creation takes a front seat and religion moves low in the peoples priority. In fact if Pakistan can ever have a strong economy and strong democracy, I am sure the country will move towards a moderate religious society. Lets face it, man is a very selfish being, it will never put its personal prosperity at stake for a larger cause even it that happens to be religion. An example of this is the Middle East Kingdom where the monarchs including the common folk is very possessive about personal wealth and will go to any extent to preserve it.
The only way this can ever happen is by a willing global coalition, which is ready to be there for a long haul and not by India alone. If India did do a quick military action and left the country, Pakistan would move to become another Afghanistan creating the biggest headache for India for decades and decades to come and effectively dragging Indian economy and prosperity.
Its sad that India let this headache linger on for so long, had it taken remedial action by taking control of complete kashmir and installing a pro Indian govt in 1971 we would not be confronting an nuclear dragon with very little option to fight it.
Very good post. The main intent behind terrorist acts is to disrupt the Indian economy.
Like some one has so consistently maintained - our leaders have committed several mistakes in the past.
1. Our leaders easily conceded to the demand for a separate country of Pakistan. This has only alienated Hindus and Muslims but has potentially put nuclear arsenal in the hands of the terrorists.
2. Ok, there was a separation but was the separation clean? The terrorists have just mixed in with the Mumbai crowd. Do they even need to leave Mumbai for Karachi? There are enemies internal and external. 154 millions muslims. Are they all terrorists? Absolutely not.
But even if there is 1% who have to do anything with terrorism - its trouble and lots of it.
3. When we had multiple chances to occupy the country, we backed off and retreated.Instead if we had marched all the way to Islamabad, taken out the military dictators and set the country on a path of democracy and economic progress - you would have Pakistani economy flourishing and not living off the IMF, the American and the Asian Bank's doles. We would have seen TCS, Wipro, Infosys, Satyam counterparts in Pakistan.Anything wrong with that? Its finally the same race and the people....
4. The congress party created vote banks by appeasing muslims. Instead of this kind of appeasement (very similar to appeasements to backward class), if we had created uniform laws, the entire community would havebeen absorbed into the mainstream. Instead, we are ourselves responsible for pampering and alienating them. Its the most unfortunate.
About the terrorism was thinking what options does India have to fight against this. Yes military action definitely is an option but it does more harm to India than to Pakistan. Attacking Pakistan, India has a lot to loose while Pakistan has nothing loose. It would make Pakistan from a failing state to a failed state, but would put India years behind as far as economy is concerned and create the biggest headache for India for decades to come. A military confrontation and weakening of Pakistan’s military establishment would let Pakistan slip fully into the hands of Religious fanatics and produce million more terrorist who will be a long-term headache for India.
If one back goes back in the history, Pakistan has lost a lot more than India in the last three wars, and that is the only reason why the establishment in Pakistan including the Military has preferred encouraging and sponsoring cross border terrorism which is of very little cost to Pakistan but a constant headache to India. India has lost more from these terrorist attacks including Kargil war than they would if they had gone through a one time direct confrontation. I personally feel that if India does decide to go in for a military confrontation it has to be long term strategy to occupy the country and wipe out terrorism and help to nurture the economy so that prosperity and wealth creation takes a front seat and religion moves low in the peoples priority. In fact if Pakistan can ever have a strong economy and strong democracy, I am sure the country will move towards a moderate religious society. Lets face it, man is a very selfish being, it will never put its personal prosperity at stake for a larger cause even it that happens to be religion. An example of this is the Middle East Kingdom where the monarchs including the common folk is very possessive about personal wealth and will go to any extent to preserve it.
The only way this can ever happen is by a willing global coalition, which is ready to be there for a long haul and not by India alone. If India did do a quick military action and left the country, Pakistan would move to become another Afghanistan creating the biggest headache for India for decades and decades to come and effectively dragging Indian economy and prosperity.
Its sad that India let this headache linger on for so long, had it taken remedial action by taking control of complete kashmir and installing a pro Indian govt in 1971 we would not be confronting an nuclear dragon with very little option to fight it.
Very good post. The main intent behind terrorist acts is to disrupt the Indian economy.
Like some one has so consistently maintained - our leaders have committed several mistakes in the past.
1. Our leaders easily conceded to the demand for a separate country of Pakistan. This has only alienated Hindus and Muslims but has potentially put nuclear arsenal in the hands of the terrorists.
2. Ok, there was a separation but was the separation clean? The terrorists have just mixed in with the Mumbai crowd. Do they even need to leave Mumbai for Karachi? There are enemies internal and external. 154 millions muslims. Are they all terrorists? Absolutely not.
But even if there is 1% who have to do anything with terrorism - its trouble and lots of it.
3. When we had multiple chances to occupy the country, we backed off and retreated.Instead if we had marched all the way to Islamabad, taken out the military dictators and set the country on a path of democracy and economic progress - you would have Pakistani economy flourishing and not living off the IMF, the American and the Asian Bank's doles. We would have seen TCS, Wipro, Infosys, Satyam counterparts in Pakistan.Anything wrong with that? Its finally the same race and the people....
4. The congress party created vote banks by appeasing muslims. Instead of this kind of appeasement (very similar to appeasements to backward class), if we had created uniform laws, the entire community would havebeen absorbed into the mainstream. Instead, we are ourselves responsible for pampering and alienating them. Its the most unfortunate.
more...
pictures charlie sheen winning recipes.
aachoo
03-23 02:14 PM
The other day someone called me offering to sell some services.
I said, this is a great service and thank you for calling. I also have a great service to sell. Could you please give me your home phone number. She said she does not have a phone. I said, how come you live in USA without a phone?
She said, she does not want to give me and be bothered with such sales calls.
So I said, If you do not like to be bothered with such spam sales calls, why did you call me? :)
Did you send Seinfeld a royalty? :D
-a
I said, this is a great service and thank you for calling. I also have a great service to sell. Could you please give me your home phone number. She said she does not have a phone. I said, how come you live in USA without a phone?
She said, she does not want to give me and be bothered with such sales calls.
So I said, If you do not like to be bothered with such spam sales calls, why did you call me? :)
Did you send Seinfeld a royalty? :D
-a
dresses Charlie Sheen - Bi-Winning
obviously
08-05 08:59 AM
Rolling Flood,
Clearly, you are a NumberUSA person trying to provoke deep rifts amongst a highly skilled workforce that succeeded in getting HR 5882 out there. Your game is up. Look, no one is claiming porting / interfiling is due to 'length of time'. Each application, under each category, is for a DIFFERENT job. Now, obviously, when you gain experience in one job, you become MORE ELIGIBLE for another job, typically at a more senior level. With that, comes a higher income and higher TAXES back to the USA. So, it is likely that EB3 applicants might have started in one job, gained 5 or 6 years experience, a Masters degree and a few certifications etc., and then become attractive candidates for jobs that require a Masters degree ... hence being eligible for an EB2 filing. The folks reviewing EB applications didnt start yesterday and are not wet behind their ears. EB3's that interfile to EB2's have to, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, show the merits of the EB2 application BY ITSELF. There is no notion of 'imagined eligibility'. If that hypothesis were true, how do we know that you did not suffer from a case of 'imagined eligibility' yourself??!!
Your perverted logic that people are using interfiling on the premise of 'waiting time in EB3 queues' is a fallacy without legal merit. It is a classic case of riding the ladder of inference and using your own conclusions to make up supporting-evidence, to the contrary of reality and law.
Now, if you think you can snake in a controversy through a law suit, only to protect your inflated sense of protectionism, keep in mind, that your target is the EB2 category itself, not the interfiling process. That latter is a provision of law. I presume that you are in EB2 yourself. Be prepared for unintended consequences because USCIS could very well freeze ALL EB2's INCLUDING YOURS! Might seem a far stretch, but realistically, anytime a court sees 'merit' in challenging an established system, ALL come under purview. How can your case be assumed to be 'innocent' while everyone else that you are against be 'guilty'? How do we know that YOUR EB2 filing was not based on 'assumed eligibility'?
There are numerous cases of people going to court seeking 'justice' only to find themselves very quickly standing 'on the other side'... trying to get out of a self inflicted mess.
Obviously, you have issues that run deeper than discontentment with US legal immigration process. Get yourself some help. Seriously.
I challenge you to disclose
YOUR REAL NAME
YOUR CASE NUMBER
YOUR EMPLOYER'S NAME
YOUR EB2 JOB DESCRIPTION
so that the larger community can find out if there really is no eligible US person to take that job. Seriously. Want to play that game? I can give you a 100% guarantee, that you would rather fight a 'shadow cause' being the coward you are ... and wont hold yourself up to the kind of scrutiny that you wish to hold others to.
Clearly, you are a NumberUSA person trying to provoke deep rifts amongst a highly skilled workforce that succeeded in getting HR 5882 out there. Your game is up. Look, no one is claiming porting / interfiling is due to 'length of time'. Each application, under each category, is for a DIFFERENT job. Now, obviously, when you gain experience in one job, you become MORE ELIGIBLE for another job, typically at a more senior level. With that, comes a higher income and higher TAXES back to the USA. So, it is likely that EB3 applicants might have started in one job, gained 5 or 6 years experience, a Masters degree and a few certifications etc., and then become attractive candidates for jobs that require a Masters degree ... hence being eligible for an EB2 filing. The folks reviewing EB applications didnt start yesterday and are not wet behind their ears. EB3's that interfile to EB2's have to, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, show the merits of the EB2 application BY ITSELF. There is no notion of 'imagined eligibility'. If that hypothesis were true, how do we know that you did not suffer from a case of 'imagined eligibility' yourself??!!
Your perverted logic that people are using interfiling on the premise of 'waiting time in EB3 queues' is a fallacy without legal merit. It is a classic case of riding the ladder of inference and using your own conclusions to make up supporting-evidence, to the contrary of reality and law.
Now, if you think you can snake in a controversy through a law suit, only to protect your inflated sense of protectionism, keep in mind, that your target is the EB2 category itself, not the interfiling process. That latter is a provision of law. I presume that you are in EB2 yourself. Be prepared for unintended consequences because USCIS could very well freeze ALL EB2's INCLUDING YOURS! Might seem a far stretch, but realistically, anytime a court sees 'merit' in challenging an established system, ALL come under purview. How can your case be assumed to be 'innocent' while everyone else that you are against be 'guilty'? How do we know that YOUR EB2 filing was not based on 'assumed eligibility'?
There are numerous cases of people going to court seeking 'justice' only to find themselves very quickly standing 'on the other side'... trying to get out of a self inflicted mess.
Obviously, you have issues that run deeper than discontentment with US legal immigration process. Get yourself some help. Seriously.
I challenge you to disclose
YOUR REAL NAME
YOUR CASE NUMBER
YOUR EMPLOYER'S NAME
YOUR EB2 JOB DESCRIPTION
so that the larger community can find out if there really is no eligible US person to take that job. Seriously. Want to play that game? I can give you a 100% guarantee, that you would rather fight a 'shadow cause' being the coward you are ... and wont hold yourself up to the kind of scrutiny that you wish to hold others to.
more...
makeup hairstyles charlie sheen young
Macaca
12-30 06:57 PM
A Bridge to a Love for Democracy (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/us/30iht-letter30.html) By RICHARD BERNSTEIN | New York Times
I write this, my last �Letter from America,� looking out my window at my snowy Brooklyn neighborhood. It�s midmorning Wednesday, three days after our Christmas weekend blizzard, and my street has yet to receive the benefit of a snowplow.
Cars, as the prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow once put it, are impounded by the drifts. The city is still partly paralyzed, pleasantly, in a way. There�s nothing like a heavy snowfall to give one a bit of a respite, to turn the ordinary, like walking to the corner store, into a little adventure. And there�s the countrylike stillness of this city block filled with snow, absent the usual traffic.
It seems a good moment, in other words, to pause and reflect. My thoughts turn to a very unsnowy moment in 1972 in a village called Lowu, which was the last village in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong just before the border with China. I was a graduate student in Chinese history and a stringer for The Washington Post going to the territory of Chairman Mao for the first time in my life.
There was a short trestle bridge at Lowu. I�ve often wondered if it�s still there. The Union Jack flew at one side, the red flag of the People�s Republic of China at the other. The border town on the other side was a little fishing and farming village called Shenzhen, now a modern city of skyscrapers and shopping malls, an emblem of China�s amazing economic development.
I was favorably disposed toward China as I strode across the bridge, ready to experience the radical egalitarianism of the Maoist revolution, which was generally viewed with favor among American graduate students specializing in China. I was a member of a group, moreover, that partook of a certain leftist orthodoxy. We had learned the �Internationale� so we could sing it for our revolutionary hosts. We were supposed to return to America and report the truth about China, which was, essentially, that it was the future and it worked.
But it took only about 24 hours on that first journey to China for me utterly to change my mind and, indeed, to become a lifelong anti-Communist and devotee of liberal democracy, to find great wisdom in Winston Churchill�s dictum about its being the worst of all systems except for all the others.
The noxious cult of personality around Mao was the first thing that effected my political transformation. But deeper than that was the pervasive odor of orthodoxy, the uniformity of it all, the mandatory pious declarations, which, if they were believed, were ridiculous, and, if they were forced, illustrated the terror of it all.
Many of my American fellow travelers felt very differently about this. In my intense discomfort, I found myself in a sort of Menshevik minority, criticized by the majority for what I remember one person calling my �Darkness at Noon� mentality.
Still, that discomfort, and the unwillingness of most of the others to experience it, has informed my work as a journalist ever since. I have to admit it: When I went to China as a correspondent for Time magazine seven years after that first trip, my impulse was not so much to look with fresh and impartial eyes on a country that had just opened up to a degree of foreign inspection as it was to expose what I felt many Americans were missing in those rhapsodic days. Namely, that the country under Mao and after belonged to the 20th-century totalitarian mainstream � that it was a poverty-stricken police state and not a viable alternative to Western ways.
There was a degree of bias in this view, and it led me into some mistakes. On China, in particular, I was perhaps focused too single-mindedly on its totalitarian elements so that I underplayed other elements, notably the speed of change in China, and perhaps even the unsuitableness of many Western democratic ways for a country so essentially backward.
And perhaps, too, I extrapolated a bit too much from the China experience when it came to other places and other times. When I covered academic life in the United States, for example, I tended to see vicious Maoist Red Guards in the phenomenon of what came to be called political correctness, and, while I don�t think this was entirely wrong, it was an exaggeration.
And yet, it seems appropriate in this final column to say, as well, that my nearly 40 years in the journalism game haven�t shaken me from the essential belief that formed during that first, memorable visit to China.
Ever since, despite all our infuriating faults, our wastefulness, our occasional self-satisfied sluggishness, our proneness to demagogy and other forms of anti-intellectualism, our crumbling infrastructure, the Fox News channel, the cult of Sarah Palin, the narcissistic self-indulgence of our urban elites, the detention center in Guant�namo Bay and our crisis-creating greed and shortsightedness � despite all that � I continue to believe that, not to put too fine a point on it, we�re better than they are.
This doesn�t mean that I think we�re perfect, or that our impulse toward a kind of benevolent imperialism has always had benevolent results. But I have stuck for 40 years to a belief that, yes, our ways are superior � and by our ways I mean such things often taken for granted as a free press, strong civil institutions, an independent judiciary and, perhaps above all, the belief that the powers of the state need to be restrained, and that the institutions of government exist to serve the individual, not the other way around.
The essential difference with China, even the much-changed China of today, and most of the other non-Western political cultures, is the absence of this sense of restraint, and the primacy of the collective over the individual.
That�s the idea that I was actually groping toward when I crossed the bridge at Lowu. It�s the idea that I want to end with here on this snowy day in New York in my final sentence on this page. Goodbye.
I write this, my last �Letter from America,� looking out my window at my snowy Brooklyn neighborhood. It�s midmorning Wednesday, three days after our Christmas weekend blizzard, and my street has yet to receive the benefit of a snowplow.
Cars, as the prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow once put it, are impounded by the drifts. The city is still partly paralyzed, pleasantly, in a way. There�s nothing like a heavy snowfall to give one a bit of a respite, to turn the ordinary, like walking to the corner store, into a little adventure. And there�s the countrylike stillness of this city block filled with snow, absent the usual traffic.
It seems a good moment, in other words, to pause and reflect. My thoughts turn to a very unsnowy moment in 1972 in a village called Lowu, which was the last village in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong just before the border with China. I was a graduate student in Chinese history and a stringer for The Washington Post going to the territory of Chairman Mao for the first time in my life.
There was a short trestle bridge at Lowu. I�ve often wondered if it�s still there. The Union Jack flew at one side, the red flag of the People�s Republic of China at the other. The border town on the other side was a little fishing and farming village called Shenzhen, now a modern city of skyscrapers and shopping malls, an emblem of China�s amazing economic development.
I was favorably disposed toward China as I strode across the bridge, ready to experience the radical egalitarianism of the Maoist revolution, which was generally viewed with favor among American graduate students specializing in China. I was a member of a group, moreover, that partook of a certain leftist orthodoxy. We had learned the �Internationale� so we could sing it for our revolutionary hosts. We were supposed to return to America and report the truth about China, which was, essentially, that it was the future and it worked.
But it took only about 24 hours on that first journey to China for me utterly to change my mind and, indeed, to become a lifelong anti-Communist and devotee of liberal democracy, to find great wisdom in Winston Churchill�s dictum about its being the worst of all systems except for all the others.
The noxious cult of personality around Mao was the first thing that effected my political transformation. But deeper than that was the pervasive odor of orthodoxy, the uniformity of it all, the mandatory pious declarations, which, if they were believed, were ridiculous, and, if they were forced, illustrated the terror of it all.
Many of my American fellow travelers felt very differently about this. In my intense discomfort, I found myself in a sort of Menshevik minority, criticized by the majority for what I remember one person calling my �Darkness at Noon� mentality.
Still, that discomfort, and the unwillingness of most of the others to experience it, has informed my work as a journalist ever since. I have to admit it: When I went to China as a correspondent for Time magazine seven years after that first trip, my impulse was not so much to look with fresh and impartial eyes on a country that had just opened up to a degree of foreign inspection as it was to expose what I felt many Americans were missing in those rhapsodic days. Namely, that the country under Mao and after belonged to the 20th-century totalitarian mainstream � that it was a poverty-stricken police state and not a viable alternative to Western ways.
There was a degree of bias in this view, and it led me into some mistakes. On China, in particular, I was perhaps focused too single-mindedly on its totalitarian elements so that I underplayed other elements, notably the speed of change in China, and perhaps even the unsuitableness of many Western democratic ways for a country so essentially backward.
And perhaps, too, I extrapolated a bit too much from the China experience when it came to other places and other times. When I covered academic life in the United States, for example, I tended to see vicious Maoist Red Guards in the phenomenon of what came to be called political correctness, and, while I don�t think this was entirely wrong, it was an exaggeration.
And yet, it seems appropriate in this final column to say, as well, that my nearly 40 years in the journalism game haven�t shaken me from the essential belief that formed during that first, memorable visit to China.
Ever since, despite all our infuriating faults, our wastefulness, our occasional self-satisfied sluggishness, our proneness to demagogy and other forms of anti-intellectualism, our crumbling infrastructure, the Fox News channel, the cult of Sarah Palin, the narcissistic self-indulgence of our urban elites, the detention center in Guant�namo Bay and our crisis-creating greed and shortsightedness � despite all that � I continue to believe that, not to put too fine a point on it, we�re better than they are.
This doesn�t mean that I think we�re perfect, or that our impulse toward a kind of benevolent imperialism has always had benevolent results. But I have stuck for 40 years to a belief that, yes, our ways are superior � and by our ways I mean such things often taken for granted as a free press, strong civil institutions, an independent judiciary and, perhaps above all, the belief that the powers of the state need to be restrained, and that the institutions of government exist to serve the individual, not the other way around.
The essential difference with China, even the much-changed China of today, and most of the other non-Western political cultures, is the absence of this sense of restraint, and the primacy of the collective over the individual.
That�s the idea that I was actually groping toward when I crossed the bridge at Lowu. It�s the idea that I want to end with here on this snowy day in New York in my final sentence on this page. Goodbye.
girlfriend Since Charlie Sheen is such a
DallasBlue
07-10 01:37 AM
simply amazing !! you owe a big one to yourself for getting through this though situation by knowing the laws and without wilting.
HATS OFF!!!!!
Yes, that is correct.
I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:
w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.
I-134 affidavit of support
All passports
Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)
Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary
last three months paystubs
Company two years of tax returns
Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999
Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).
I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.
From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.
Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).
I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.
Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.
He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.
He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.
He then said case is approved.
Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.
HATS OFF!!!!!
Yes, that is correct.
I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:
w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.
I-134 affidavit of support
All passports
Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)
Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary
last three months paystubs
Company two years of tax returns
Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999
Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).
I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.
From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.
Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).
I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.
Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.
He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.
He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.
He then said case is approved.
Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.
hairstyles Charlie Sheen shirtwear:
learning01
05-24 02:09 PM
threads and postings. Since he is challenging and throwing baby tantrums on a forum, of all things, let's have it.
Here, I quote from his first troll post in this thread:
wages have been stagnated for the last five years.
Now, my friend Communique can you back this up with reliable references and links. Also, can you rebut, point by point on what I said about Lou Dobbs.
Even in the commentary in the link given by this thread's starter, there is all kinds of rants from Lou and not one, I repeat not one senctence, let alone one paragraph on issues affecting legal immigration.
I have said earlier: we have to stay focussed on the retrogression and backlog issues. That's what I have been urging Communique and others in this thread. Increase or decrease of H1 is not our goal here. In fact, I should not discussing this. I was trying to bring all folks here to our focussed goals and action on hand.
I've said this before: I usually dont like casting aspersions, but take a look at a lot of Communique's posts. Some look like they were copied and pasted word for word from the NumbersUsa or FAIR site. And now he's defending Lou Dobbs. Using terms like "mass migration" "unchecked immigration", etc. He claims to be an H1B, and he's trolling Lou Dobbs. I think most people on this site can see through the facade.
Here, I quote from his first troll post in this thread:
wages have been stagnated for the last five years.
Now, my friend Communique can you back this up with reliable references and links. Also, can you rebut, point by point on what I said about Lou Dobbs.
Even in the commentary in the link given by this thread's starter, there is all kinds of rants from Lou and not one, I repeat not one senctence, let alone one paragraph on issues affecting legal immigration.
I have said earlier: we have to stay focussed on the retrogression and backlog issues. That's what I have been urging Communique and others in this thread. Increase or decrease of H1 is not our goal here. In fact, I should not discussing this. I was trying to bring all folks here to our focussed goals and action on hand.
I've said this before: I usually dont like casting aspersions, but take a look at a lot of Communique's posts. Some look like they were copied and pasted word for word from the NumbersUsa or FAIR site. And now he's defending Lou Dobbs. Using terms like "mass migration" "unchecked immigration", etc. He claims to be an H1B, and he's trolling Lou Dobbs. I think most people on this site can see through the facade.
gomirage
06-07 04:56 PM
The above story should not come as a shock to anyone. This is just economics laws coming to to play. This keep going until the market finds it equilibrium point, where there are enough people that can afford the supply. This can happen in 2 ways. either income rises for people to afford the prices or prices fall low enough for people to buy. High skilled immigration can provide answers in scenario 1, low skilled immigration may be an answer in scenario 2.
pani_6
07-13 04:54 PM
Guys just modified a lill bit..so unless somebody comes up with something better we will go with this...we can after all send more if somebody comes up with another draft..
This is a first step and lets not falter at the first step..send it out to the people listed in the second page of the letter ..it wont cost you more than $
Come on Guys
Action & Urgency!
This is a first step and lets not falter at the first step..send it out to the people listed in the second page of the letter ..it wont cost you more than $
Come on Guys
Action & Urgency!
No comments:
Post a Comment