Looks like time to shutdown IV site..
I suggested long time back .. do not allow anyone to start the threads ..
Only allow users who are active contributors to IV budget.
Now this site is becoming like yahoo chats ...
God help Immigration community ...
EB3 is not moving ...EB2 dead stop ...
sriramkalyan,
I find it irritating that every now and then, some tom dick and harry comes to these forms and say - "time to close down" whenever you see something that you don't like. Frankly, this shallow view and negative attitude is irritating.
I suggested long time back .. do not allow anyone to start the threads ..
Only allow users who are active contributors to IV budget.
Now this site is becoming like yahoo chats ...
God help Immigration community ...
EB3 is not moving ...EB2 dead stop ...
sriramkalyan,
I find it irritating that every now and then, some tom dick and harry comes to these forms and say - "time to close down" whenever you see something that you don't like. Frankly, this shallow view and negative attitude is irritating.
wallpaper Graphic Design Services.
Again where are you getting that 550K value for a house from . The houses that were 500K two years back are now 400 - 450K ( exclude the extremes ). Why the HOA - can't the house be a single family home like most of US .
Taxes - well I was not saying you get the whole money back but are taxes the only reason one should not buy a house ?
Housing price correction has already happened in most of the good areas. If you think that they are going to go down 20% more that is never going to happen. People are not going to sell. They will just say put rather than take a 40% loss.
pandeyji, please dont jump to conclusion. The "kind" of house I want to live in is 550K now. I dont know how much was it 2 years back. I live in Seattle, where prices started to fall only late last year and this year when MSFT , Boeing and Starbucks announced layoffs.
I agree that there are some places now such as : NC, SC, FL, MI , OH, TX, MN etc are good places to buy. CA , OR, NV, AZ and WA have vast supply of inventories.
When I say I am expecting 20% correction, I am not speculating in blind. I have seen the data on zillow.com where they tell you last price the house was sold for, the date and current price. Zillow also tells you what is their estimate you should offer in current market conditions and how much correction, upward or downward have they seen in last 3 months.
Now for eg: I see houses from 1999 where they sold for 250-300 K and owners of the same property now expect 550-600K in 2009.
Now if I do a rent vs buy, I must offer this guy 400K-420K (max) for it to be profitable for me in 5-7 years against the current rent. Also majority of the houses have HOAs here in WA metro areas. Some are high and some are low.
Again if I have any realistic chance for this guy to take my offer in good faith, he must bring down the cost to 450K. Then 400-420K is a doable deal.
If the seller is serious, there is no reason why he will not accept a 420K offer because there is abundant oversupply in the market. He can hold out for 2 years but a distressed or needful seller will have to sell home for that price because he might get only 1-2 offers in a month or few months.
Even in my own community, people are expecting 350 K for a condo with 280 HOA, do you think, I can offer them 270K? Only then the rent/buy will make sense for me in next 5 years (and to be honest I dont plan to live in a town home for 30 years).
I have given you enough numbers, do the math, lets not bring emotional sentiment into this.
Taxes - well I was not saying you get the whole money back but are taxes the only reason one should not buy a house ?
Housing price correction has already happened in most of the good areas. If you think that they are going to go down 20% more that is never going to happen. People are not going to sell. They will just say put rather than take a 40% loss.
pandeyji, please dont jump to conclusion. The "kind" of house I want to live in is 550K now. I dont know how much was it 2 years back. I live in Seattle, where prices started to fall only late last year and this year when MSFT , Boeing and Starbucks announced layoffs.
I agree that there are some places now such as : NC, SC, FL, MI , OH, TX, MN etc are good places to buy. CA , OR, NV, AZ and WA have vast supply of inventories.
When I say I am expecting 20% correction, I am not speculating in blind. I have seen the data on zillow.com where they tell you last price the house was sold for, the date and current price. Zillow also tells you what is their estimate you should offer in current market conditions and how much correction, upward or downward have they seen in last 3 months.
Now for eg: I see houses from 1999 where they sold for 250-300 K and owners of the same property now expect 550-600K in 2009.
Now if I do a rent vs buy, I must offer this guy 400K-420K (max) for it to be profitable for me in 5-7 years against the current rent. Also majority of the houses have HOAs here in WA metro areas. Some are high and some are low.
Again if I have any realistic chance for this guy to take my offer in good faith, he must bring down the cost to 450K. Then 400-420K is a doable deal.
If the seller is serious, there is no reason why he will not accept a 420K offer because there is abundant oversupply in the market. He can hold out for 2 years but a distressed or needful seller will have to sell home for that price because he might get only 1-2 offers in a month or few months.
Even in my own community, people are expecting 350 K for a condo with 280 HOA, do you think, I can offer them 270K? Only then the rent/buy will make sense for me in next 5 years (and to be honest I dont plan to live in a town home for 30 years).
I have given you enough numbers, do the math, lets not bring emotional sentiment into this.
The reason for this was not because of EB3ROW getting preference, it was because USCIS illegally used up entire year's quota before the congress actually authorized them to. Stop making false claims about EB3ROW getting preference over Eb2-I
but you are not correct about this. please look it up. The vertical spillover was going to EB3 ROW, had that not been so, EB2 I would not have become U, even though (you are right about that) USCIS was actually allocating a little too fast.
The bottom line is this: before the "system changed" the spillover went to EB3 ROW (country quota more important that category preference)
Now with revised interpretation spillover goes first to EB2 retrogressed countries (preference category precedent over country quota- use of soft quota provison from AC21). Either way Eb3 I was last on the totem pole.
There would have been no spillover to EB3 I in either situation. I'm not saying this to either to justify it or to argue for it's fairness. Just trying to make a point about the root issues.
Therefore, the "change" leaves EB3 I exactly where it was before- which of course is an insane place to be. Frankly, in your place, I would be freaking going out of my mind. But if your only reason for this action is that "change", you have to sit back a moment and understand what the change has doen (or in this case not done) to you.
The ONLY way to solve the EB3I problem is increased GC numbers. That is why recapture has been the first and foremost thing we have always pursued. Last time there was a recapture, GC numbers went to every single category. Anyway you look at it, if with a recapture, EB2 became current, every bit of spillover in every quarter would go to EB3. Eventually, there will be more long lasting reform. For now we desperately need the extra numbers in any form or shape.
Just my 2c. not trying to trying to "stop your voice from being heard". One piece of friendly and well meaning advice. Target letters and measures at those that have the power to make the changes you want. Otherwise the effort is pointless from the start.
but you are not correct about this. please look it up. The vertical spillover was going to EB3 ROW, had that not been so, EB2 I would not have become U, even though (you are right about that) USCIS was actually allocating a little too fast.
The bottom line is this: before the "system changed" the spillover went to EB3 ROW (country quota more important that category preference)
Now with revised interpretation spillover goes first to EB2 retrogressed countries (preference category precedent over country quota- use of soft quota provison from AC21). Either way Eb3 I was last on the totem pole.
There would have been no spillover to EB3 I in either situation. I'm not saying this to either to justify it or to argue for it's fairness. Just trying to make a point about the root issues.
Therefore, the "change" leaves EB3 I exactly where it was before- which of course is an insane place to be. Frankly, in your place, I would be freaking going out of my mind. But if your only reason for this action is that "change", you have to sit back a moment and understand what the change has doen (or in this case not done) to you.
The ONLY way to solve the EB3I problem is increased GC numbers. That is why recapture has been the first and foremost thing we have always pursued. Last time there was a recapture, GC numbers went to every single category. Anyway you look at it, if with a recapture, EB2 became current, every bit of spillover in every quarter would go to EB3. Eventually, there will be more long lasting reform. For now we desperately need the extra numbers in any form or shape.
Just my 2c. not trying to trying to "stop your voice from being heard". One piece of friendly and well meaning advice. Target letters and measures at those that have the power to make the changes you want. Otherwise the effort is pointless from the start.
2011 Your template design will
If they continue to see in 140 filings by a company that there has been more 140's filed then people on payroll
That is precisely why smaller companies choose to revoke the 140 when an employee leaves them while the 485 is still pending.
It isn't always to "get back" at the employee.
That being said, UN, I would love to hear your thoughts on this situation,
Person leaves employer X (140 approved, more than 180 days since 485 filing, etc.) and joins employer Y on EAD (under AC21).
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
That is precisely why smaller companies choose to revoke the 140 when an employee leaves them while the 485 is still pending.
It isn't always to "get back" at the employee.
That being said, UN, I would love to hear your thoughts on this situation,
Person leaves employer X (140 approved, more than 180 days since 485 filing, etc.) and joins employer Y on EAD (under AC21).
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
Some paras from New Math on Hill, Scramble on K Street (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201579.html) -- The House's pledge of fiscal restraint could threaten tax breaks across many industries. Businesses and the lobbyists who represent them are on high alert.
Lobbyists are scrambling all over Capitol Hill to prevent any of their clients from becoming a "pay-for."
The Democrats' new pay-as-you-go budget regimen means that lawmakers who want to spend more on one program have to either cut another or raise taxes to pay for it. Similarly, if they want to cut taxes, they must fund the cut by trimming programs or raising other taxes to make up the difference.
Those budgetary offsets are called pay-fors -- a new Washington buzzword striking fear in the hearts of special interests.
Lobbyists are scrambling all over Capitol Hill to prevent any of their clients from becoming a "pay-for."
The Democrats' new pay-as-you-go budget regimen means that lawmakers who want to spend more on one program have to either cut another or raise taxes to pay for it. Similarly, if they want to cut taxes, they must fund the cut by trimming programs or raising other taxes to make up the difference.
Those budgetary offsets are called pay-fors -- a new Washington buzzword striking fear in the hearts of special interests.
good article..
but i always believed, if there is a war between these countries, India will be the loser as pakistan has nothing to lose right now..we will go 10-15 yrs behind compared to other developing countires..
The war between 2 countries is that the terrorists really want, so they get a bigger grip on pakistan and they can recruit more people into them showing this..
Europen countries doesnt have much of a problem if they want to attack pak..
They will bomb and just go..India will have to deal with a destabilised country and people after tht..may be for decades
y are people giving me red and pouring bad languages..
I didnt or intend to insult any country or religion..I said only things tht I think are the facts..
If someone feels the other way..I am sorry..
but i always believed, if there is a war between these countries, India will be the loser as pakistan has nothing to lose right now..we will go 10-15 yrs behind compared to other developing countires..
The war between 2 countries is that the terrorists really want, so they get a bigger grip on pakistan and they can recruit more people into them showing this..
Europen countries doesnt have much of a problem if they want to attack pak..
They will bomb and just go..India will have to deal with a destabilised country and people after tht..may be for decades
y are people giving me red and pouring bad languages..
I didnt or intend to insult any country or religion..I said only things tht I think are the facts..
If someone feels the other way..I am sorry..
Reds.........Hmmm what for?
2010 CUSTOM GRAPHIC DESIGN
Anyway, i'll sign off and i won't post any more message in this thread again.
On page 8 or 9 you said you would not post any more message and still you continue to post !!!! Don't say anything that you can't keep up with.
On page 8 or 9 you said you would not post any more message and still you continue to post !!!! Don't say anything that you can't keep up with.
After bin Laden, U.S. Will Look East (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/05/06/after_bin_laden_us_will_look_east_99510.html) By Daniel Kilman | German Marshall Fund
Al Qaeda's attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, precipitated an unprecedented level of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. With Afghanistan beset by a resurgent Taliban, and Pakistan increasingly unstable, the United States subsequently doubled down in this troubled region even as the Asia-Pacific became the locus of global economic growth and great-power military competition. Although U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for years to come, bin Laden's death heralds the beginning of the end of America's "Af-Pak" fixation. Increasingly, the United States will look eastward; Europe should as well.
Many forget that, pre-September 11, America's strategic focus was gravitating toward Asia. Coming into office, President George W. Bush was determined to rethink how the United States managed China's rise, a development that posed a long-term challenge to American economic and military primacy. This determination was reinforced when a Chinese fighter jet rammed a U.S. spy plane in April 2001, resulting in a short-lived crisis. However, the terrorist attacks orchestrated by al Qaeda redirected the Bush administration toward Afghanistan and the larger Muslim world. Although America remained active in the Asia-Pacific throughout President Bush's tenure, the primary focus of U.S. strategy lay elsewhere.
Like his predecessor, President Barack Obama entered the White House intending to prioritize the Asia-Pacific. Again, events intervened. To prevent the Taliban from solidifying control over large parts of Afghanistan, Obama authorized a surge of U.S. troops there and ratcheted up armed drone attacks against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. Yet his commitment to reorienting the United States toward Asia appears to have never wavered. Prior to bin Laden's death, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon told The New Yorker that the United States was "overweighted" in the Middle East and Afghanistan and "underweighted" in the Asia-Pacific.
The death of bin Laden in a shootout with U.S. special forces does not presage an imminent pullout from Afghanistan or a rapid drawdown in American assistance to Pakistan. The United States has committed itself to a "responsible transition" in Afghanistan and will retain a considerable military presence there in the years ahead. Terrorist networks that have metastasized within Pakistan over the past decade and now threaten the integrity of the state will not disband because of bin Laden's demise. Even if elements of the Pakistani government were complicit in hiding the leader of al Qaeda, the United States cannot risk lightly the collapse of a nuclear-armed state by cutting off foreign aid.
At the same time, the completion of America's original mission in Afghanistan that bin Laden's death symbolizes will allow for a strategy that increasingly reflects the Asia-Pacific geography of U.S. interests. This shift will not occur overnight. For the moment, the revolutions rocking the Arab world will absorb U.S. attention. Nor will this shift automatically substitute China for al Qaeda as America's animating enemy, a development some in China may fear. In fact, the outlines of a U.S. reorientation toward Asia are already clear. The United States will strengthen existing alliances and strategic partnerships, forge new ones, and link like-minded nations together. To reinforce its military presence in the region, the United States will retain permanent bases, negotiate agreements for temporary access to facilities, and deploy more of its naval and air forces to the Indo-Pacific rim stretching from Japan and South Korea to Southeast Asia and the approaches to India. At the same time, the United States will pursue a reinvigorated trade agenda anchored by the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks that seek to lay the foundation for a free trade area spanning the Pacific Ocean. Lastly, Washington will continue to champion democracy and rule of law as universal norms that all countries in the region should embrace.
U.S. rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific will have significant repercussions for Europe. Over the past decade, Afghanistan has become a central theater for transatlantic security cooperation. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will continue to operate in Afghanistan, but, in the future, the United States will increasingly look to Europe as a partner in Asia. Yet transatlantic cooperation in this region remains weak, and many in Europe continue to regard Asia primarily as a market rather than as the cockpit of international politics in the 21st century. This should change. Europe should anticipate America's eastward shift and begin to define a role in the Asia-Pacific that transcends trade.
During the second half of the 20th century, the United States and Europe, acting in concert, transformed what was then the world's most important region-the North Atlantic. If Europe can join the United States and refocus on the Asia-Pacific, the transatlantic partners can shape this century's most vital region as well.
Daniel M. Kliman is a Transatlantic Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
Talking to China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08sun2.html) New York Times Editorial
Chinese investors still searching for U.S. welcome mat (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/news/international/chinese_investors_america.fortune/index.htm) By Sheridan Prasso | Fortune
The U.S. must push back against China�s investment controls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-push-back-against-chinas-investment-controls/2011/05/06/AFoRjRTG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Renren, China�s Facebook, sells shares on NYSE
But amid murky numbers and dubious accomplishments, is it really worth billions? (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/110504/renren-china-facebook-nyse)
By David Case | GlobalPost
Can China's billions spur the next big idea? (http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/idINIndia-56786220110505) By Don Durfee and James Pomfret | Reuters
The Rights and Wrongs of China�s Aid Policy (http://idsa.in/idsacomments/TheRightsandWrongsofChinasAidPolicy_gsingh_040511) By Gunjan Singh | The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
China sees bright side of elite exodus (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME05Ad01.html) By Wu Zhong | Asia Times
China Imposes Price Controls, Informally (http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/05/08/china-imposes-price-controls-informally/) By Gordon Chang | Forbes
Al Qaeda's attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, precipitated an unprecedented level of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. With Afghanistan beset by a resurgent Taliban, and Pakistan increasingly unstable, the United States subsequently doubled down in this troubled region even as the Asia-Pacific became the locus of global economic growth and great-power military competition. Although U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for years to come, bin Laden's death heralds the beginning of the end of America's "Af-Pak" fixation. Increasingly, the United States will look eastward; Europe should as well.
Many forget that, pre-September 11, America's strategic focus was gravitating toward Asia. Coming into office, President George W. Bush was determined to rethink how the United States managed China's rise, a development that posed a long-term challenge to American economic and military primacy. This determination was reinforced when a Chinese fighter jet rammed a U.S. spy plane in April 2001, resulting in a short-lived crisis. However, the terrorist attacks orchestrated by al Qaeda redirected the Bush administration toward Afghanistan and the larger Muslim world. Although America remained active in the Asia-Pacific throughout President Bush's tenure, the primary focus of U.S. strategy lay elsewhere.
Like his predecessor, President Barack Obama entered the White House intending to prioritize the Asia-Pacific. Again, events intervened. To prevent the Taliban from solidifying control over large parts of Afghanistan, Obama authorized a surge of U.S. troops there and ratcheted up armed drone attacks against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. Yet his commitment to reorienting the United States toward Asia appears to have never wavered. Prior to bin Laden's death, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon told The New Yorker that the United States was "overweighted" in the Middle East and Afghanistan and "underweighted" in the Asia-Pacific.
The death of bin Laden in a shootout with U.S. special forces does not presage an imminent pullout from Afghanistan or a rapid drawdown in American assistance to Pakistan. The United States has committed itself to a "responsible transition" in Afghanistan and will retain a considerable military presence there in the years ahead. Terrorist networks that have metastasized within Pakistan over the past decade and now threaten the integrity of the state will not disband because of bin Laden's demise. Even if elements of the Pakistani government were complicit in hiding the leader of al Qaeda, the United States cannot risk lightly the collapse of a nuclear-armed state by cutting off foreign aid.
At the same time, the completion of America's original mission in Afghanistan that bin Laden's death symbolizes will allow for a strategy that increasingly reflects the Asia-Pacific geography of U.S. interests. This shift will not occur overnight. For the moment, the revolutions rocking the Arab world will absorb U.S. attention. Nor will this shift automatically substitute China for al Qaeda as America's animating enemy, a development some in China may fear. In fact, the outlines of a U.S. reorientation toward Asia are already clear. The United States will strengthen existing alliances and strategic partnerships, forge new ones, and link like-minded nations together. To reinforce its military presence in the region, the United States will retain permanent bases, negotiate agreements for temporary access to facilities, and deploy more of its naval and air forces to the Indo-Pacific rim stretching from Japan and South Korea to Southeast Asia and the approaches to India. At the same time, the United States will pursue a reinvigorated trade agenda anchored by the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks that seek to lay the foundation for a free trade area spanning the Pacific Ocean. Lastly, Washington will continue to champion democracy and rule of law as universal norms that all countries in the region should embrace.
U.S. rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific will have significant repercussions for Europe. Over the past decade, Afghanistan has become a central theater for transatlantic security cooperation. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will continue to operate in Afghanistan, but, in the future, the United States will increasingly look to Europe as a partner in Asia. Yet transatlantic cooperation in this region remains weak, and many in Europe continue to regard Asia primarily as a market rather than as the cockpit of international politics in the 21st century. This should change. Europe should anticipate America's eastward shift and begin to define a role in the Asia-Pacific that transcends trade.
During the second half of the 20th century, the United States and Europe, acting in concert, transformed what was then the world's most important region-the North Atlantic. If Europe can join the United States and refocus on the Asia-Pacific, the transatlantic partners can shape this century's most vital region as well.
Daniel M. Kliman is a Transatlantic Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
Talking to China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08sun2.html) New York Times Editorial
Chinese investors still searching for U.S. welcome mat (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/news/international/chinese_investors_america.fortune/index.htm) By Sheridan Prasso | Fortune
The U.S. must push back against China�s investment controls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-push-back-against-chinas-investment-controls/2011/05/06/AFoRjRTG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Renren, China�s Facebook, sells shares on NYSE
But amid murky numbers and dubious accomplishments, is it really worth billions? (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/110504/renren-china-facebook-nyse)
By David Case | GlobalPost
Can China's billions spur the next big idea? (http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/idINIndia-56786220110505) By Don Durfee and James Pomfret | Reuters
The Rights and Wrongs of China�s Aid Policy (http://idsa.in/idsacomments/TheRightsandWrongsofChinasAidPolicy_gsingh_040511) By Gunjan Singh | The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
China sees bright side of elite exodus (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME05Ad01.html) By Wu Zhong | Asia Times
China Imposes Price Controls, Informally (http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/05/08/china-imposes-price-controls-informally/) By Gordon Chang | Forbes
hair Web Design Estimate Form
Unitednations,
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs. You will say to do that law must be changed. But at least go strict on whom you approve once they are selected in the lottery. Are they not bringing lot of criminals, fanatics, unemployed and uneducated poor through DV.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs. You will say to do that law must be changed. But at least go strict on whom you approve once they are selected in the lottery. Are they not bringing lot of criminals, fanatics, unemployed and uneducated poor through DV.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
Law is giving them to right for their unfair practice. So congress is trying to fix the law. Most of them may be abiding law but using unfair practice which affects many people. So there is nothing wrong in fixing the law. Actually they should have applied H1b whenever they need. But they applied H1b for 1 or 2 years so that they will find a job later whereas companies which are having immediate requirement could not find H1b. Is this right practice though 100% legal
If congress so concerned about outsourcing to India or some other country , why dont they ban outsourcing completely by american companies. I think one of biggest user of outsourcing is US army that is directly controlled by U.S congress. :D
If congress so concerned about outsourcing to India or some other country , why dont they ban outsourcing completely by american companies. I think one of biggest user of outsourcing is US army that is directly controlled by U.S congress. :D
hot Templates Graphic Design
Buying a house at or around the same rent and availing the 8K credit doesn't seem like a bad deal to me. GC or no..most have EAD (at least Jul 07 filers)..so if we lose our job we would be in a similar situation as a GC holder..having a form of work permit so employer doesnt have to sponsor us.
Uncle Sam is never going to give u 8K in the next 10 years that we will be waiting for getting our GC. So buy now before the rates get back to 7-8%.
Uncle Sam is never going to give u 8K in the next 10 years that we will be waiting for getting our GC. So buy now before the rates get back to 7-8%.
house Graphic Design
I am not so sure....OP might have followed the law to the letter but what if one of his employers did not ? As UN is repeatedly pointing out (with his CSC I140 example), OP has to contact a good attorney before replying to the request lest his app will be in peril as the contracts will suggest that the position is temporary. Being naive and hoping for the best without considering all the options by OP in my view is fraught with risks. Anyways, good luck to him.
Agreed - OP needs a good lawyer now.
Agreed - OP needs a good lawyer now.
tattoo quotation templates,
I beleive there will be no plans for legal immigrants by either candidates . If there will be any it will be for illegal immigratns because they are not paying taxes . I wish there was a rule not to pay any taxes till we the GC , that will change a lot doesnt it .
I think if Obama wins most of us here will qualify for higher taxes , I feel we already pay more with out a permenant status in this country . Any way taxes may not be a factor for choosing a president and I have no problem if Obama wins.
I dont understand why the immigrant opponets dont get the following .
>> If I get my GC I buy home which means more money will stay in this country.
>> If I get my GC , chances of me going back home and vacating american job odds are more .
I think people always combine H1B with GC , or illegals with GC ..which makes it difficult for average american to understand our issues .
I think if Obama wins most of us here will qualify for higher taxes , I feel we already pay more with out a permenant status in this country . Any way taxes may not be a factor for choosing a president and I have no problem if Obama wins.
I dont understand why the immigrant opponets dont get the following .
>> If I get my GC I buy home which means more money will stay in this country.
>> If I get my GC , chances of me going back home and vacating american job odds are more .
I think people always combine H1B with GC , or illegals with GC ..which makes it difficult for average american to understand our issues .
pictures Graphic Solutions, Graphic
I don't know what else to tell you except what I've already stated. Frankly I am surprised that this debate has gone beyond 1 page. I am tired of beating a dead horse.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
All your calculations are meaningless if the house price keeps going down 20% like the past few years. We will reach a point where the house price crash stops and starts to stabilize. That point is couple of years away. Until then, we can ignore the rent vs mortgage calculations.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
All your calculations are meaningless if the house price keeps going down 20% like the past few years. We will reach a point where the house price crash stops and starts to stabilize. That point is couple of years away. Until then, we can ignore the rent vs mortgage calculations.
dresses Hosting Site Template
Rightly said. This is the case with most of us mpadapa. We too are in the process of starting Australia PR. Perth area, while not as great as Silicon Valley, according to many, is a breeding ground for innovation.
I cannot let this uncertainty - whether Obama's immigration policy will be same as Durbin's immigration policy for highly skilled immigrants - ruin my future. I have a career ahead and want to be in control of my fate.
When I visited Statue Of Liberty last week, I had a strange feeling. First time I suspected that it is an age old fable that America used to accept immigrants with open arms to flourish - grow and contribute back. It seems too good to be true because our GC process is so irrational. 8 years wait for becoming PR in contrast with other western democracies could do it in < 5 years with a smoother process. Something wrong here.
If Obama becomes president can he restore the faith of high-skilled immigrant who play by the books and still have to wait for decades to get their Green Card.
After graduating with a Electrical engg degree from a top school in India, I got a job with a world leading semiconductor company. I first came to USA almost 12 years ago on a business trip as part of a multinational chip design effort for high end Telecommunication market. I was very impressed with the group of professionals I worked with. I felt the work environment stimulated the creativity in me and brought the best out of me. After the short trip I went back to my home country but that visit left a lasting impression on me and I felt USA would be the place I can further my professional abilities. Couple of years later, I came to USA for my Masters to embark on that journey. Even though I graduated when the US economy was in recession (2001), my unique skill set was much sought after and hence I got a job with a R&D startup division of a popular Japanese company. Working with a great group of professionals brought out the creativity in me. I currently have 10 US patents. The sailing was smooth until I started my Green Card process. The outdated immigration system and the long wait in the limbo state has been impacting my professional and personal life. I am starting to doubt that my American dream is slipping away day by day. I hope if Obama becomes the president he would restore some credibility to my faith in the immigration system. But if Sen. Durbin is driving Obama's immigration policy then I fear even more long waits for high-skilled immigrants because of Sen. Durbin's aggressive stance against H1B's. Mean while I have started to look at immigrant friendly countries like Australia and Canada as my possible future destination. Due to too much headaches with immigration process my Director had decided not to hire any more foreign workers, this decision has crippled our divisions expansion as most of the interested candidates require H1's. All the new projects which otherwise would have started in USA has moved to other places all because of the broken immigration process.
Obama has mentioned many times on the campaign trail that "his education" is the reason why he has risen to where he is now. I feel Obama is a person who values higher education and high-skilled professional and I do have great faith in Obama's skills, I hope he takes a strong stance on the need to reform the high-skilled immigration system.
Many have been looking at the high-skilled immigrants through a narrow pin hole, even Sen Durbin has been swayed by such critics. NFAP report shows that almost 50% of the private venture backed companies started between 1995 and 2005 are founded by immigrants. Guess what Sen. Durbin and high-skilled immigrant critics majority of those immigrants would've taken the route of H1 -> GreenCard -> US citizen. The companies started by those immigrants employ thousands of Americans and millions in tax revenue. Then why is America so hostile towards the same high-skilled immigration system which in the long run benefits America. Why are Sen. Durbin so short sighted on the high-skilled immigration system? Hope Obama can look at the high-skilled immigration system with a long term perspective and persuade his colleagues in Congress to enact a legislation to fix this broken system.
Here is the link to the NFAP report which I talked about
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
I cannot let this uncertainty - whether Obama's immigration policy will be same as Durbin's immigration policy for highly skilled immigrants - ruin my future. I have a career ahead and want to be in control of my fate.
When I visited Statue Of Liberty last week, I had a strange feeling. First time I suspected that it is an age old fable that America used to accept immigrants with open arms to flourish - grow and contribute back. It seems too good to be true because our GC process is so irrational. 8 years wait for becoming PR in contrast with other western democracies could do it in < 5 years with a smoother process. Something wrong here.
If Obama becomes president can he restore the faith of high-skilled immigrant who play by the books and still have to wait for decades to get their Green Card.
After graduating with a Electrical engg degree from a top school in India, I got a job with a world leading semiconductor company. I first came to USA almost 12 years ago on a business trip as part of a multinational chip design effort for high end Telecommunication market. I was very impressed with the group of professionals I worked with. I felt the work environment stimulated the creativity in me and brought the best out of me. After the short trip I went back to my home country but that visit left a lasting impression on me and I felt USA would be the place I can further my professional abilities. Couple of years later, I came to USA for my Masters to embark on that journey. Even though I graduated when the US economy was in recession (2001), my unique skill set was much sought after and hence I got a job with a R&D startup division of a popular Japanese company. Working with a great group of professionals brought out the creativity in me. I currently have 10 US patents. The sailing was smooth until I started my Green Card process. The outdated immigration system and the long wait in the limbo state has been impacting my professional and personal life. I am starting to doubt that my American dream is slipping away day by day. I hope if Obama becomes the president he would restore some credibility to my faith in the immigration system. But if Sen. Durbin is driving Obama's immigration policy then I fear even more long waits for high-skilled immigrants because of Sen. Durbin's aggressive stance against H1B's. Mean while I have started to look at immigrant friendly countries like Australia and Canada as my possible future destination. Due to too much headaches with immigration process my Director had decided not to hire any more foreign workers, this decision has crippled our divisions expansion as most of the interested candidates require H1's. All the new projects which otherwise would have started in USA has moved to other places all because of the broken immigration process.
Obama has mentioned many times on the campaign trail that "his education" is the reason why he has risen to where he is now. I feel Obama is a person who values higher education and high-skilled professional and I do have great faith in Obama's skills, I hope he takes a strong stance on the need to reform the high-skilled immigration system.
Many have been looking at the high-skilled immigrants through a narrow pin hole, even Sen Durbin has been swayed by such critics. NFAP report shows that almost 50% of the private venture backed companies started between 1995 and 2005 are founded by immigrants. Guess what Sen. Durbin and high-skilled immigrant critics majority of those immigrants would've taken the route of H1 -> GreenCard -> US citizen. The companies started by those immigrants employ thousands of Americans and millions in tax revenue. Then why is America so hostile towards the same high-skilled immigration system which in the long run benefits America. Why are Sen. Durbin so short sighted on the high-skilled immigration system? Hope Obama can look at the high-skilled immigration system with a long term perspective and persuade his colleagues in Congress to enact a legislation to fix this broken system.
Here is the link to the NFAP report which I talked about
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
makeup Contact me for a quote on your
First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
Why you are not raising hue and cry for Sudan massacre? Oh! muslims killing muslims or muslims killing Xians! May be that is fine with you!
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
Why you are not raising hue and cry for Sudan massacre? Oh! muslims killing muslims or muslims killing Xians! May be that is fine with you!
girlfriend girlfriend Quote your web design price. price quote template. Quote:
This is the simple logic everybody tried to convey to Refugee_now in 15 pages of this thread. But he don't understand or don't want to !!!!
so.. by your logic, Al qaeda has declared war on the United states (they did, OBL issued that declaration some time in the late 90s) civilians die in each war, so alqaeda had every right to kill civilians in 9/11?
Of course not! Intentional targeting of civilians is inexcusable and constitutes a war crime and we should never cease to protest it regardless if it is done by a primitive terrorist or from the comfort of an F-16.
so.. by your logic, Al qaeda has declared war on the United states (they did, OBL issued that declaration some time in the late 90s) civilians die in each war, so alqaeda had every right to kill civilians in 9/11?
Of course not! Intentional targeting of civilians is inexcusable and constitutes a war crime and we should never cease to protest it regardless if it is done by a primitive terrorist or from the comfort of an F-16.
hairstyles SSI templates and Rollover
i am sorry that israel has been a little callous about collateral damage...not cool!
i have seen most of the opinions favouring israel so i need not speak out here. but these are my feelings and i don't care how many red dots i get:
a. hamas does not believe in coexistence with israel but wants its destruction. and belongs to the powerful syria-iran-hezbollah axis. not cool!
event Egypt and Saudi Arabia regard Hamas with skepticism.
b. they teach kids that killing jews is the right thing. and btw for that matter US DoS had protested revised 4th grade Saudi text that teaches all non-believers should be killed. teaching hatred to kids is not cool!
c. hamas was using mosques and schools as cover. hiding amongst civilian population, using women and children as suicide bombers and then making an outcry...not cool!
d. hamas was the first to break the truce and had been secretly preparing via tunnels etc throughout the period of calm. not cool!
e. in UK sometime back i remember a church had been converted to a mosque with the blessings of the locals. so cool!
tibetians have been killed and driven out of their land for example...but you dont see the Dalai Lama summoning Tibetians for killing of chinese soldiers stationed in Tibet. so cool!
...not sure it would be possible in an islamic country. why is it that if it is "terrorism", it usually means islamic terrorism?
moderates like you need to spread the message of negotiation and distance themselves from any act of violence and such teachings.
You are educated by CNN and Fox. Go see what others are saying. Don't just be one sided.
Yes, when you kill Muslims its collateral damage. Killing school kids and bombing schools and hospital is collateral damage. If we have this mentality, yes we would see peace and harmony in this world.
i have seen most of the opinions favouring israel so i need not speak out here. but these are my feelings and i don't care how many red dots i get:
a. hamas does not believe in coexistence with israel but wants its destruction. and belongs to the powerful syria-iran-hezbollah axis. not cool!
event Egypt and Saudi Arabia regard Hamas with skepticism.
b. they teach kids that killing jews is the right thing. and btw for that matter US DoS had protested revised 4th grade Saudi text that teaches all non-believers should be killed. teaching hatred to kids is not cool!
c. hamas was using mosques and schools as cover. hiding amongst civilian population, using women and children as suicide bombers and then making an outcry...not cool!
d. hamas was the first to break the truce and had been secretly preparing via tunnels etc throughout the period of calm. not cool!
e. in UK sometime back i remember a church had been converted to a mosque with the blessings of the locals. so cool!
tibetians have been killed and driven out of their land for example...but you dont see the Dalai Lama summoning Tibetians for killing of chinese soldiers stationed in Tibet. so cool!
...not sure it would be possible in an islamic country. why is it that if it is "terrorism", it usually means islamic terrorism?
moderates like you need to spread the message of negotiation and distance themselves from any act of violence and such teachings.
You are educated by CNN and Fox. Go see what others are saying. Don't just be one sided.
Yes, when you kill Muslims its collateral damage. Killing school kids and bombing schools and hospital is collateral damage. If we have this mentality, yes we would see peace and harmony in this world.
But you see, what YOU think RollingFlood wants cannot be achieved through a lawsuit. From what I and pretty much most of us understand from the letter of the law is that it allows for earliest priority date. A lawsuit cannot change the law. Also remember that GCs in the employment based category are given based on SPONSORSHIP by an employer. So an EB3 got an earlier priority date based on a labor petition that existed at some earlier period in time when RollingFlood, I, and plenty of others decided we wanted to get a PhD instead. That was OUR choice.
Also, this is a free country. People who are really committed to get an advanced degree, can enroll in graduate school part time, which is what many people I know did. They hopped onto the GC line as EB3 and went to grad school part time. Some now have graduate degrees from places like Stanford.
Also note that the law accounts for really smart people to be unfettered by allowing for things such as EB2 National Interest Waiver and EB1 exceptional ability.
To say that just because someone was doing a PhD and therefore needs to get an earlier priority date that accounts for their graduate program is, to say the least, weird. It is mixing up the employment based system with a merit based system. In fact, one could argue a merit based system should not have any notion of priority dates whatsoever!
Also, just like you, I have no personal gain from this, one way or the other :-)
I have desisted from posting here because all people do is give hystero-emotonal resposnses ranging from "advanced degree means nothing in law' to "his parents must have waived him goodbye". However recently I see some sane posts that actually consider the issues rather than the rhetoric and I feel constrained to point out that you are wrong.
1. I cannot judge the merits of a lawsuit but the "equivelance" of an advanced degree is set at 5 years by regulation not law. That can be challenged in court. Again- I don't know if it will be thrown out, but it can be challenged all right. It would satisfy the goal of OP, whose primary grouse was with people who do not qualify initially for EB2, using the 5 years to both jump to EB2 and preserve their PD.
2. The employment based system is actually stratified by "merit" or" "level of job difficulty" (rightly or wrongly so- that's a separate issue). So they are not different things. The preference categories are set up so that it's easist to qualify for EB3 and toughest for EB1. Therefore the jump that BS +5 takes to EB2 already gives them the advantage of a better cut off date in a smaller category. The PD porting magnifies that to the extent that genuine (adding this to avoid renewed attacks on the terrible things EB2 folks do to qualify) original EB2 filers are left at a huge disadvantage. I asked repeatedly why people who spent the same years getting adavanced education should be left behind. No one addressed that, instead gave me alternative sob stories about being wrongly placed in EB3. Two wrongs do not make a right! And I (at least) am not challenging the rights of people who initially could have qualified for an EB2 to port.
And if its a free country OP has every right to question the regulation. Why have fits over it? How about analysing the issue itself instead and figuring out it's strengths and weaknesses? Do you think USCIS or Congress care that your attorney "made you file EB3"?
3. EB2 NIW still gives you a PD only AFTER you complete your advanced education and prove yourself exceptional. Still the same EB2 line. EB1 similarly gives you a PD much later- of course for now it does not matter since its current- if it backlogs, expect the same questions from them.
I fear this thread is fodder for anti immigrants. Virtually every EB3 here has questioned "most EB2's" classification and accused all of us of some kind of fraud. Really guys, be ashamed.
Also, this is a free country. People who are really committed to get an advanced degree, can enroll in graduate school part time, which is what many people I know did. They hopped onto the GC line as EB3 and went to grad school part time. Some now have graduate degrees from places like Stanford.
Also note that the law accounts for really smart people to be unfettered by allowing for things such as EB2 National Interest Waiver and EB1 exceptional ability.
To say that just because someone was doing a PhD and therefore needs to get an earlier priority date that accounts for their graduate program is, to say the least, weird. It is mixing up the employment based system with a merit based system. In fact, one could argue a merit based system should not have any notion of priority dates whatsoever!
Also, just like you, I have no personal gain from this, one way or the other :-)
I have desisted from posting here because all people do is give hystero-emotonal resposnses ranging from "advanced degree means nothing in law' to "his parents must have waived him goodbye". However recently I see some sane posts that actually consider the issues rather than the rhetoric and I feel constrained to point out that you are wrong.
1. I cannot judge the merits of a lawsuit but the "equivelance" of an advanced degree is set at 5 years by regulation not law. That can be challenged in court. Again- I don't know if it will be thrown out, but it can be challenged all right. It would satisfy the goal of OP, whose primary grouse was with people who do not qualify initially for EB2, using the 5 years to both jump to EB2 and preserve their PD.
2. The employment based system is actually stratified by "merit" or" "level of job difficulty" (rightly or wrongly so- that's a separate issue). So they are not different things. The preference categories are set up so that it's easist to qualify for EB3 and toughest for EB1. Therefore the jump that BS +5 takes to EB2 already gives them the advantage of a better cut off date in a smaller category. The PD porting magnifies that to the extent that genuine (adding this to avoid renewed attacks on the terrible things EB2 folks do to qualify) original EB2 filers are left at a huge disadvantage. I asked repeatedly why people who spent the same years getting adavanced education should be left behind. No one addressed that, instead gave me alternative sob stories about being wrongly placed in EB3. Two wrongs do not make a right! And I (at least) am not challenging the rights of people who initially could have qualified for an EB2 to port.
And if its a free country OP has every right to question the regulation. Why have fits over it? How about analysing the issue itself instead and figuring out it's strengths and weaknesses? Do you think USCIS or Congress care that your attorney "made you file EB3"?
3. EB2 NIW still gives you a PD only AFTER you complete your advanced education and prove yourself exceptional. Still the same EB2 line. EB1 similarly gives you a PD much later- of course for now it does not matter since its current- if it backlogs, expect the same questions from them.
I fear this thread is fodder for anti immigrants. Virtually every EB3 here has questioned "most EB2's" classification and accused all of us of some kind of fraud. Really guys, be ashamed.
lol...you are right..
but dont know... I am going by hunch..I hope not to regret..:)
None of my business as to what you do but U not going thru a lawyer seems counter intuitive to me.. not sure why u r taking chances to see whether you would regret or not? anyways good luck man..
but dont know... I am going by hunch..I hope not to regret..:)
None of my business as to what you do but U not going thru a lawyer seems counter intuitive to me.. not sure why u r taking chances to see whether you would regret or not? anyways good luck man..
