Hello Hiralal,
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
wallpaper Old wooden lank sign post
.
We will support your lawsuit if you pay up for our support. I am onboard if the figure is 4 digit or above. I hope your lawsuit doesn't get backlogged in the court and USCIS holds up your GC application until your case is decided in the court.
If you lose the case I will return your money with a 3% interest to compensate for inflation or defalation of the currency.
If you lose the case I will return your money with a 3% interest to compensate for inflation or defalation of the currency.
2011 a Blank Wooden Sign Post
Actually; I didn't think it was courageous at all. I had to practice what I preach.
One of the reasons they ask for tax returns, w2's is they want to assess your intentions; if tax returns, etc. , is out of line with offered wage then it can make them think that it is not believable you will be doing that job once greencard gets approved.
Once 485 is filed; you are in a period of authorized stay. At that point; you can sit around and do nothing; switch jobs, etc.; However; to keep working you need to have authorization (ie., EAD card if you don't hold H-1b).
I didn't prepare my personal tax returns on purpose because uscis could have assessed my intentions differently. When I asked him why he wanted to see the tax returns for 2005 and 2006; even though I have unrestricted employment and I can do nothing if I please; he responded it was to assess intention. Since he saw I was self employed; if my tax returns were out of line with the offered job I was going to take upon greencard approval then they may not believe it.
Now; I didn't give him any financial data for 2005 and 2006. Although this is legal; if I was going to port to self employment then he could have assessed whether I was going to become a public charge or how I was living in 2005 and 2006. I had all my financial documents (ie., bank balances, brokerage account); just in case he went down this road.
he didn't but just in case he wanted to; I was ready for it.
Hi Unitednations,
I have a little problem. I am a canadian citizen on H1b and used to commute across the border everyday. I work for Ford and every year during christmas we get a week long vacation. My contracting company does not pay me for the xmas break. So, I filed for unemployment compensation in michigan for that week - reason - temporary layoff (as a Canadian Citizen you can collect unemployment from michigan......thats what my US citizen colleagues do every year........Does this mean I was out of status for that week?....Can this cause my I-485 to get rejected? (I have done it twice in 5 years)
One of the reasons they ask for tax returns, w2's is they want to assess your intentions; if tax returns, etc. , is out of line with offered wage then it can make them think that it is not believable you will be doing that job once greencard gets approved.
Once 485 is filed; you are in a period of authorized stay. At that point; you can sit around and do nothing; switch jobs, etc.; However; to keep working you need to have authorization (ie., EAD card if you don't hold H-1b).
I didn't prepare my personal tax returns on purpose because uscis could have assessed my intentions differently. When I asked him why he wanted to see the tax returns for 2005 and 2006; even though I have unrestricted employment and I can do nothing if I please; he responded it was to assess intention. Since he saw I was self employed; if my tax returns were out of line with the offered job I was going to take upon greencard approval then they may not believe it.
Now; I didn't give him any financial data for 2005 and 2006. Although this is legal; if I was going to port to self employment then he could have assessed whether I was going to become a public charge or how I was living in 2005 and 2006. I had all my financial documents (ie., bank balances, brokerage account); just in case he went down this road.
he didn't but just in case he wanted to; I was ready for it.
Hi Unitednations,
I have a little problem. I am a canadian citizen on H1b and used to commute across the border everyday. I work for Ford and every year during christmas we get a week long vacation. My contracting company does not pay me for the xmas break. So, I filed for unemployment compensation in michigan for that week - reason - temporary layoff (as a Canadian Citizen you can collect unemployment from michigan......thats what my US citizen colleagues do every year........Does this mean I was out of status for that week?....Can this cause my I-485 to get rejected? (I have done it twice in 5 years)
I am not taking sides here, but it is not a question of "smarter". I have a simple question. Do years spent doing MS/PhD have no value? They count for nothing in PD. On the other hand a person with a BS accumulates 5 years in the same time and ports. Now he/she is a full 5 years ahead of the one that pursued the education route. Fair?
I don't think that porting is all fair. Just MHO that the 5 year experience rule negates all efforts in getting a masters degree/PhD and puts those people at a huge disadvantage. The system tried to make up for that by creating preference categories. Not that they work perfectly of course as many of you have pointed out.
I think it is all subjective. You ask �Do years spent doing MS/Phd have no value?�. A person who has 5+ years experience will ask �Do years spent working have no value?�.
Just think of a scenario where a person who right after finishing a degree gets into masters because he had money and another decides to work for whatever reason (he could not afford could be one reason), The former finishes his MS and applies GC right away, how can the latter person who waits for an extra three years and apply get ahead of the former?.
Now you might say � No dude, I did not have money, I worked for 2 years and then got into MS�, like I said it is all subjective. You pick a case that augurs well for your argument and I chose a scenario to counter yours.
I think it is fair to equate 5 years of work experience (remember, to qualify for EB2 you need to have PROGRESSIVE work experience, you need to show some progress/advancement in that 5 years) with 2+ years of MS. I had more than 5 years of experience and I applied in EB2 and now I am doing my masters. Will I withdraw my GC application and wait to apply after I do my masters?. Hell no.
I don't think that porting is all fair. Just MHO that the 5 year experience rule negates all efforts in getting a masters degree/PhD and puts those people at a huge disadvantage. The system tried to make up for that by creating preference categories. Not that they work perfectly of course as many of you have pointed out.
I think it is all subjective. You ask �Do years spent doing MS/Phd have no value?�. A person who has 5+ years experience will ask �Do years spent working have no value?�.
Just think of a scenario where a person who right after finishing a degree gets into masters because he had money and another decides to work for whatever reason (he could not afford could be one reason), The former finishes his MS and applies GC right away, how can the latter person who waits for an extra three years and apply get ahead of the former?.
Now you might say � No dude, I did not have money, I worked for 2 years and then got into MS�, like I said it is all subjective. You pick a case that augurs well for your argument and I chose a scenario to counter yours.
I think it is fair to equate 5 years of work experience (remember, to qualify for EB2 you need to have PROGRESSIVE work experience, you need to show some progress/advancement in that 5 years) with 2+ years of MS. I had more than 5 years of experience and I applied in EB2 and now I am doing my masters. Will I withdraw my GC application and wait to apply after I do my masters?. Hell no.
Very well said obviously! But whatever we think about Mrs. Rolling Flood, she already got her lone fan SunnySurya who PMed her his/her phone number. :rolleyes:
Sure they will have good time in coming weekend.
We are here guessing whether RF and SS are girl-girl or guy-girl or guy-guy?:confused:
Rolling_Flood,
If you are willing to take action, I am with you. Don't worry about what other people are saying, it does not matter. A man got to do what he got to do.
Let us start with taking some legal opinions. I am willing to share the cost.
I also beleive (and firmly so) that the PD porting among categories should not be allowed.
I am sending you my phone number in PM. Call me when you are ready and we can discuss more. Alternatively, give me your phone number as I definitly want to follow through.
Thanks
Sunny
started by a guy/gal who possibly spent the formative years of his/her life buried in text books because mama/papa wanted him/her to crack the JEE and get into IIT... possibly feted with flowers on his/her trip to the US...after lying on the F1 visa interview about intent to immigrate...and now seeking to raise a hue and cry because the protectionist sense of entitlement is being challenged by law abiding immigrants...someone that is obviously closeted in perspective...
obviously, a spoilt child crying sour grapes... the admins did not sweep anything under the carpet... they let this thread grow to 13 pages! obviously, you are someone that is unhappy with a lot of things. stop hurting yourself. you might invite a myocardial infraction given the rate at which you seem to be stressing out... there is no EB3 (majority) vs. EB3 (minority) issue... stop raking up more BS... enough is enough... someone has to have the b*lls to tell you that the world is bigger than you and your inflated sense of self worth and entitlement...got it?
i still dont see the EB2 job posting for this #1 guy/gal in a #2 company... what a #3 (third rate :)) poster with a #4 (fourth degree) threat that started this all... i can help your company find a qualified US citizen for YOUR EXACT JOB... go ahead, do post that... scared to do that? :)... obviously you are!!!! Ha! Ha! Ha!
PM me and I can help your company. No, I am not a body shopper and wont take commissions, thank you. Just thought I'd help a US company not have to deal with this immigration BS, so they can let you go and hire a US citizen instead. Seriously, I call that social service.
While I am at it, I can also contact special interest groups from the ACLU to Gay/Lesbian Groups to Veteran Groups to find out why their members dont get the kind of protected 'lines' that EB2's such as you have! After all, if EB2 is such a protected category, why not have other protections for other groups that need such protections? We can go ahead and divide the world into pieces as small as our mind... :D
My last post for this obvious loser... mama/papa would be proud, indeed :D... sad, sorry state of reality that we call the 'high skilled immigration cause' ...
While you are ranting and raving, dont forget to get back to basics... and read my earlier threads educating you on the basics of EB immigration and why the current interfiling / porting is a valid practice...
Go ahead, rant, rave... enjoy your stress... :D
BTW: I have more qualifications and success than people have letters in their long names :)... so, I know a little bit about success :D... and I didnt get it by throwing others under the bus... !
Sure they will have good time in coming weekend.
We are here guessing whether RF and SS are girl-girl or guy-girl or guy-guy?:confused:
Rolling_Flood,
If you are willing to take action, I am with you. Don't worry about what other people are saying, it does not matter. A man got to do what he got to do.
Let us start with taking some legal opinions. I am willing to share the cost.
I also beleive (and firmly so) that the PD porting among categories should not be allowed.
I am sending you my phone number in PM. Call me when you are ready and we can discuss more. Alternatively, give me your phone number as I definitly want to follow through.
Thanks
Sunny
started by a guy/gal who possibly spent the formative years of his/her life buried in text books because mama/papa wanted him/her to crack the JEE and get into IIT... possibly feted with flowers on his/her trip to the US...after lying on the F1 visa interview about intent to immigrate...and now seeking to raise a hue and cry because the protectionist sense of entitlement is being challenged by law abiding immigrants...someone that is obviously closeted in perspective...
obviously, a spoilt child crying sour grapes... the admins did not sweep anything under the carpet... they let this thread grow to 13 pages! obviously, you are someone that is unhappy with a lot of things. stop hurting yourself. you might invite a myocardial infraction given the rate at which you seem to be stressing out... there is no EB3 (majority) vs. EB3 (minority) issue... stop raking up more BS... enough is enough... someone has to have the b*lls to tell you that the world is bigger than you and your inflated sense of self worth and entitlement...got it?
i still dont see the EB2 job posting for this #1 guy/gal in a #2 company... what a #3 (third rate :)) poster with a #4 (fourth degree) threat that started this all... i can help your company find a qualified US citizen for YOUR EXACT JOB... go ahead, do post that... scared to do that? :)... obviously you are!!!! Ha! Ha! Ha!
PM me and I can help your company. No, I am not a body shopper and wont take commissions, thank you. Just thought I'd help a US company not have to deal with this immigration BS, so they can let you go and hire a US citizen instead. Seriously, I call that social service.
While I am at it, I can also contact special interest groups from the ACLU to Gay/Lesbian Groups to Veteran Groups to find out why their members dont get the kind of protected 'lines' that EB2's such as you have! After all, if EB2 is such a protected category, why not have other protections for other groups that need such protections? We can go ahead and divide the world into pieces as small as our mind... :D
My last post for this obvious loser... mama/papa would be proud, indeed :D... sad, sorry state of reality that we call the 'high skilled immigration cause' ...
While you are ranting and raving, dont forget to get back to basics... and read my earlier threads educating you on the basics of EB immigration and why the current interfiling / porting is a valid practice...
Go ahead, rant, rave... enjoy your stress... :D
BTW: I have more qualifications and success than people have letters in their long names :)... so, I know a little bit about success :D... and I didnt get it by throwing others under the bus... !
Most of the posts here are not relevant to the original topic of the thread � buying a home when 485 is pending.
You basically buy a home not to sell it off, but to live in it. Circumstances may lead one to sell a home, but no one can predict if that will happen for sure or when it may happen.
For selling a home � just like stocks � it does not matter if the real estate market is doing well today or not. It only matters how the seller market is when it is time to sell. And again, no one can predict that in advance. Given this simple logic, it is totally useless to speculate resale values of homes which you may never even sell!
I see people are so obsessed about resale value that they almost have never gone out to see homes, look at floor plans and see what they want, what the other family members want in a home or any of that. They instead prefer to calculate resale value based on current market conditions.
Stop seeing a home as an investment and start seeing it as a place where you will live and where your kids will grow up. Obsessing too much about the monetary aspects just takes all the fun away.
No body can predict how much it is going down exactly. But you can predict it is going down considerably.
No body can predict what the dollar value is going to be. So just spend all the money in the bank and enjoy your life while you can. No body can predict death for that matter. :confused: Just eat all you can and don't worry about your health. You need to have fun in life after all. Now what is wrong with my logic?
My point is that the house price is out of whack with income. I don't see the logic in why it would not go down. The whole mess is started because people started looking at houses as investment. Buying now and seeing the housing value drop won't be fun.
Whether you sell your house or not, it matters when you buy. You don't buy at the top of the bubble.
You basically buy a home not to sell it off, but to live in it. Circumstances may lead one to sell a home, but no one can predict if that will happen for sure or when it may happen.
For selling a home � just like stocks � it does not matter if the real estate market is doing well today or not. It only matters how the seller market is when it is time to sell. And again, no one can predict that in advance. Given this simple logic, it is totally useless to speculate resale values of homes which you may never even sell!
I see people are so obsessed about resale value that they almost have never gone out to see homes, look at floor plans and see what they want, what the other family members want in a home or any of that. They instead prefer to calculate resale value based on current market conditions.
Stop seeing a home as an investment and start seeing it as a place where you will live and where your kids will grow up. Obsessing too much about the monetary aspects just takes all the fun away.
No body can predict how much it is going down exactly. But you can predict it is going down considerably.
No body can predict what the dollar value is going to be. So just spend all the money in the bank and enjoy your life while you can. No body can predict death for that matter. :confused: Just eat all you can and don't worry about your health. You need to have fun in life after all. Now what is wrong with my logic?
My point is that the house price is out of whack with income. I don't see the logic in why it would not go down. The whole mess is started because people started looking at houses as investment. Buying now and seeing the housing value drop won't be fun.
Whether you sell your house or not, it matters when you buy. You don't buy at the top of the bubble.
2010 Sign Post Clipart #214556 by
Guys, sorry for starting this alarming thread. But the talk of an imminent indian strike in pakistan was all over the internet. I found so many links where indian govt threatens pakistan with war if it does not mends its ways. Just see for yourself.
India Set to Launch 'Small War'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-01.htm
Delhi ups its war rhetoric
http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/BA27Df01.html
US fears India may attack militant training camps in PoK
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=10507
India Hinted At Attack In Pakistan; U.S. Acts to Ease Tension on Kashmir
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-588205.html
Bush appeals to India, Pakistan to `draw back from war'
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8816140_ITM
India, Pakistan shoot, talk of war
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/12/29/foreign/AAPAKINDI.HTM
India Set to Launch 'Small War'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-01.htm
Delhi ups its war rhetoric
http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/BA27Df01.html
US fears India may attack militant training camps in PoK
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=10507
India Hinted At Attack In Pakistan; U.S. Acts to Ease Tension on Kashmir
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-588205.html
Bush appeals to India, Pakistan to `draw back from war'
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8816140_ITM
India, Pakistan shoot, talk of war
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/12/29/foreign/AAPAKINDI.HTM
Raju, the unemployment is at 4.7%. That is good, but how about earning power and wage increases ? I hear all the time my friends report that they can no longer afford goods and services as they did five or four years ago. There are plenty of evidence that in many sectors wages have dropped or have stagnated. Is that indication of surplus pr shortage of workers ?
Regarding his idea of sending 15 millions of illegals out, that is not absurd. He never told he wanted to do it overnight. A gradual, slow deportation program yes, it would be probably the best way to handle this.
I am sorry if I look negative to you guys, but my goal is to be sincere and honest about facts here.
I think that wages have gone up drastically during the dotcom bubble and you should expect them to flatten for a few years. Also, the economy is coming out from a bust and that accounts to a little stagnation. It is simple man, the world also has to catch up. If you get the same job done for much less in coutries like China, India, Russia and romania, why do you think the wages will go up, unless there is a new technology, that absolutely needs cutting edge skills. This is the way it has been in ht past, this is the way it is in present and will be this way in future. The services and goods you are talking about will become more expensive if you want to send the undocumented workers out. And the wages may not go up that much because companies can get stuff done in other parts of the world. A reporter should talk about two sides of the issue and I have never seen Lou do that. I do not have the time/interest to find the transcripts but he had been offensive about H1s and I heard him say that H1's do not pay taxes, which is a blunder.
Regarding his idea of sending 15 millions of illegals out, that is not absurd. He never told he wanted to do it overnight. A gradual, slow deportation program yes, it would be probably the best way to handle this.
I am sorry if I look negative to you guys, but my goal is to be sincere and honest about facts here.
I think that wages have gone up drastically during the dotcom bubble and you should expect them to flatten for a few years. Also, the economy is coming out from a bust and that accounts to a little stagnation. It is simple man, the world also has to catch up. If you get the same job done for much less in coutries like China, India, Russia and romania, why do you think the wages will go up, unless there is a new technology, that absolutely needs cutting edge skills. This is the way it has been in ht past, this is the way it is in present and will be this way in future. The services and goods you are talking about will become more expensive if you want to send the undocumented workers out. And the wages may not go up that much because companies can get stuff done in other parts of the world. A reporter should talk about two sides of the issue and I have never seen Lou do that. I do not have the time/interest to find the transcripts but he had been offensive about H1s and I heard him say that H1's do not pay taxes, which is a blunder.
hair lank signpost clipart.
Employment based GC will exist whoever wins. CIR or any other reform that increses number of immigrants per year (legal/illegal/ammnisity/point system/high skilled/low skilled) may not be possible in new administration (BO/Mcsamebush), unless economy bounce back. Immigration is tiny bit of the big problem facing this country. If the current economny lead to depression/recession what is the use of having GC/USC?
Both are politicans their first ambittion is the office. Country first is simply bull. However, I think BO, is the right choice at this momnet. as atleast he is having professional approch in every problem. He is having little bit socialism. I think economy will boucnce back in BO admin, which is the important issue at this point.
Both are politicans their first ambittion is the office. Country first is simply bull. However, I think BO, is the right choice at this momnet. as atleast he is having professional approch in every problem. He is having little bit socialism. I think economy will boucnce back in BO admin, which is the important issue at this point.
if people have to debate this issue, surely we can do it without needless slander and accusations?
i agree with GC applicant, words like that do not sound right and have no place here please.
btw when the vertical spillover started, there was alot of angst, these last two years all retrogressed categories except EB3 ROW have suffered. so that is not true either. except that there was frankly nothing we could do about it. there were long debates similar to the current ones- then they were between Eb2I and EB3 ROW and no conclusion was reached of course, and nothing changed by screaming at each other. finally USCIS as stated by them, has taken counsel about that "change" they made and concluded that they made an error in interpretation. what they have actually done now is rolled back a change they previosuly made.
i also want to say to all the EB2 I crowd here- all this chest thumping is pointless. EB2 I will go back, a lot, this is just a temporary flood gate to use the remaining Gc numbers for the year. meanwhile, the plight of EB3I is truly bad. lets please keep working on the recapture/exemption/ country quota bill trio that would incraese available Gc numbers- for ALL our sakes.
Paskal,
Thanks for your post. But I beg to differ. If calling a spade a spade without any implication built into the language is slander/chest thumping then I stand down. You are free to moderate the forum per the framework laid out.
However here is some food for thought for the mods and the community at large:
1. Is IV officially and specifically endorsing this consideration campaign of giving numbers to EB3 based on the letter.
2. If not, then the implication in the letter is that IV is doing so based on the logo used.
3. Lets take a step back and think over what the letter/campaign/posts in this thread are asking the USCIS to do.
4. There is a request to allocate numbers to EB3 based on length of wait.
5. These numbers can only come from EB1 or EB2 given that the pie is not going to grow pending new legislation.
6. If we accept that EB2ROW spill over can go only to EB2-Retro and only after EB2-Retro becomes current can they flow to EB3 (ROW/Retro) then the only source of visa numbers for EB3-Retro becomes EB1 spill over.
7. We are then saying that some EB1 spill over should go to both EB2 retro and EB3 ROW/retro. Even in this case EB3 ROW has to become current, then satisfy EB2-Retro and only then flow down to EB3-Retro.
8. If this is the case then one of two things can happen. Either the spill over from EB1 is small enough to satisfy EB3 ROW and EB2-Retro partially leaving EB3-Retro still high and dry or the spill over is so large that it makes EB3ROW current, EB2-Retro current and moves EB3-Retro forward. Given the sheer volume of EB2-Retro petitions that is unlikely to happen even if the spill over is large.
9. This means that the letter is really asking for EB1 spill over to be such that it makes EB3 ROW current and then splits the remainder between EB2-Retro and EB3-Retro - On what basis - I have no clue. We are sub-ordinating EB2-Retro to EB3ROW and considering it on par with EB3-Retro. Think about that for a moment. The law allows you to ignore the country limit. It does not allow you to ignore the category and country limit unless everything is current.
10. Even worse, if EB3-Retro is not claiming such a large spill over from EB1 then the only way EB3-Retro can move fwd is if EB2-ROW spill over is split with EB3 making the allocation logic even more egregious - all based on length of stay and compassionate grounds.
If the IT gurus on this forum care to draw a flow chart based on my points above they'll realize the obvious - the only implication in the language of this letter without directly putting any language to that effect is to shaft EB2-Retro and allocate numbers to EB3-Retro.
I am only stating what is blatantly obvious. Again if this is chest thumping, I stand down - but as I have said before, I will call it as I see it. You are welcome to differ and I look forward to comments from the community – flattering or otherwise. As to the EB2 dates’ moving back, that is a part and parcel of life. Besides they have been stuck at Apr 2004 for more than a year so another year it is. Cheers
i agree with GC applicant, words like that do not sound right and have no place here please.
btw when the vertical spillover started, there was alot of angst, these last two years all retrogressed categories except EB3 ROW have suffered. so that is not true either. except that there was frankly nothing we could do about it. there were long debates similar to the current ones- then they were between Eb2I and EB3 ROW and no conclusion was reached of course, and nothing changed by screaming at each other. finally USCIS as stated by them, has taken counsel about that "change" they made and concluded that they made an error in interpretation. what they have actually done now is rolled back a change they previosuly made.
i also want to say to all the EB2 I crowd here- all this chest thumping is pointless. EB2 I will go back, a lot, this is just a temporary flood gate to use the remaining Gc numbers for the year. meanwhile, the plight of EB3I is truly bad. lets please keep working on the recapture/exemption/ country quota bill trio that would incraese available Gc numbers- for ALL our sakes.
Paskal,
Thanks for your post. But I beg to differ. If calling a spade a spade without any implication built into the language is slander/chest thumping then I stand down. You are free to moderate the forum per the framework laid out.
However here is some food for thought for the mods and the community at large:
1. Is IV officially and specifically endorsing this consideration campaign of giving numbers to EB3 based on the letter.
2. If not, then the implication in the letter is that IV is doing so based on the logo used.
3. Lets take a step back and think over what the letter/campaign/posts in this thread are asking the USCIS to do.
4. There is a request to allocate numbers to EB3 based on length of wait.
5. These numbers can only come from EB1 or EB2 given that the pie is not going to grow pending new legislation.
6. If we accept that EB2ROW spill over can go only to EB2-Retro and only after EB2-Retro becomes current can they flow to EB3 (ROW/Retro) then the only source of visa numbers for EB3-Retro becomes EB1 spill over.
7. We are then saying that some EB1 spill over should go to both EB2 retro and EB3 ROW/retro. Even in this case EB3 ROW has to become current, then satisfy EB2-Retro and only then flow down to EB3-Retro.
8. If this is the case then one of two things can happen. Either the spill over from EB1 is small enough to satisfy EB3 ROW and EB2-Retro partially leaving EB3-Retro still high and dry or the spill over is so large that it makes EB3ROW current, EB2-Retro current and moves EB3-Retro forward. Given the sheer volume of EB2-Retro petitions that is unlikely to happen even if the spill over is large.
9. This means that the letter is really asking for EB1 spill over to be such that it makes EB3 ROW current and then splits the remainder between EB2-Retro and EB3-Retro - On what basis - I have no clue. We are sub-ordinating EB2-Retro to EB3ROW and considering it on par with EB3-Retro. Think about that for a moment. The law allows you to ignore the country limit. It does not allow you to ignore the category and country limit unless everything is current.
10. Even worse, if EB3-Retro is not claiming such a large spill over from EB1 then the only way EB3-Retro can move fwd is if EB2-ROW spill over is split with EB3 making the allocation logic even more egregious - all based on length of stay and compassionate grounds.
If the IT gurus on this forum care to draw a flow chart based on my points above they'll realize the obvious - the only implication in the language of this letter without directly putting any language to that effect is to shaft EB2-Retro and allocate numbers to EB3-Retro.
I am only stating what is blatantly obvious. Again if this is chest thumping, I stand down - but as I have said before, I will call it as I see it. You are welcome to differ and I look forward to comments from the community – flattering or otherwise. As to the EB2 dates’ moving back, that is a part and parcel of life. Besides they have been stuck at Apr 2004 for more than a year so another year it is. Cheers
hot house Blank Sign#39;s Post Clipart blank signpost clipart. lank signpost
Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
house 2011 Blank signpost isolated
The letter is trying to say either of two things from heart
1) Employer / DOL/ Lawyers cheated us by filing us under EB3 even though the job posting was well qualified for Eb2.
2) Employer / DOL/ Lawyers were Naive so ended up filing us under EB3 even though the job posting was well qualified for Eb2.
So now CIS can compensate us since we are waiting in line for so many years. In old times when the system was so inefficient and now you have cheated us by improving the system and people have sneaked past us? All this might be true but when you are presenting a legal case these things do not stand a chance of being accepted.
The right way will be to remove all references to Eb2 accept the fact that you consented to be in Eb3 so you should take all the pro's and con's associated with it. After that we can all write letters to CIS and all others under guidance of IV higlighting the endless waits and how visa recapture will help this mess. Dont make comparisons with Eb2 to justify your case because it isnt right and if you feel it is right then why just Eb2 why not EB1 after all they get GC in 1-2 years flat.
I would like to first applaud Pani for this effort. I strongly support his initative. I think his letter is original and from his heart. It is more authentic and human than what some on this forum are suggesting here. I think his gut feeling on this one is more important than the calculated steps IV has been taking so far.
These kind of authentic letters from members like pani would give IV a more strong foundation to focus their energy. I think all those who want to write letters to the President, Senator, Congressmen, USCIS, DOL, DOS, DOJ, etc should do so and also should write the letter on their own instead of copying one. The reasons, sentiments and purpose will add more flavour to the whole thing. I would go one step further to suggest that some should write the letter in Spanish, French, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, etc, etc, if they think that they can express themselves better in their own language.
Pani once again I would like to say that you are doing the right thing.
PS: When the ship is sinking everyone wants to escape but the one who is aggresive to save himself has more chance of living than the other who is waiting for someone to save him.
1) Employer / DOL/ Lawyers cheated us by filing us under EB3 even though the job posting was well qualified for Eb2.
2) Employer / DOL/ Lawyers were Naive so ended up filing us under EB3 even though the job posting was well qualified for Eb2.
So now CIS can compensate us since we are waiting in line for so many years. In old times when the system was so inefficient and now you have cheated us by improving the system and people have sneaked past us? All this might be true but when you are presenting a legal case these things do not stand a chance of being accepted.
The right way will be to remove all references to Eb2 accept the fact that you consented to be in Eb3 so you should take all the pro's and con's associated with it. After that we can all write letters to CIS and all others under guidance of IV higlighting the endless waits and how visa recapture will help this mess. Dont make comparisons with Eb2 to justify your case because it isnt right and if you feel it is right then why just Eb2 why not EB1 after all they get GC in 1-2 years flat.
I would like to first applaud Pani for this effort. I strongly support his initative. I think his letter is original and from his heart. It is more authentic and human than what some on this forum are suggesting here. I think his gut feeling on this one is more important than the calculated steps IV has been taking so far.
These kind of authentic letters from members like pani would give IV a more strong foundation to focus their energy. I think all those who want to write letters to the President, Senator, Congressmen, USCIS, DOL, DOS, DOJ, etc should do so and also should write the letter on their own instead of copying one. The reasons, sentiments and purpose will add more flavour to the whole thing. I would go one step further to suggest that some should write the letter in Spanish, French, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, etc, etc, if they think that they can express themselves better in their own language.
Pani once again I would like to say that you are doing the right thing.
PS: When the ship is sinking everyone wants to escape but the one who is aggresive to save himself has more chance of living than the other who is waiting for someone to save him.
tattoo Signpost with two arrows
Of course porting is derived from law!
As I was pointing out earlier, this debate has become warperd. The question is about porting with BS+5, not porting per se. I believe the BS+5 came from a legacy INS memo after a lawsuit or something. Perhaps we should ask the question on one of the attorney forums.
This does not apply. As long as BS+5 years progressive post-baccalaureate experience is ok for EB-2, the priority date recapture is as per law.
______________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
As I was pointing out earlier, this debate has become warperd. The question is about porting with BS+5, not porting per se. I believe the BS+5 came from a legacy INS memo after a lawsuit or something. Perhaps we should ask the question on one of the attorney forums.
This does not apply. As long as BS+5 years progressive post-baccalaureate experience is ok for EB-2, the priority date recapture is as per law.
______________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
pictures Blank Sign#39;s Post Clipart
No, they figured out that it is consulting companies that are exploiting loopholes. Tell me what proof you have that ALL consulting companies are complying with H-1B requriements.
Is benching that happens in consulting legal? Is paying salary according to prevailing wages in Maine and sending the contractor to work in Manhattan legal? Please tell me how these practises by desi consulting firms are legal.
And you're telling me I am ignorant! You're funny :D
I am sorry, I am not a very knowledgeable person in immigration matters like many of you, but when it comes to finger pointing, we have to show all consulting companies and why only DESI companies are getting into this discussion. I know friends who worked for IBM & KPMG on H1b travels to all states for short term contracts. What about those biggies? They are also desi firms?
How did you come to US in the first place? if not thru a consulting company ( I know F1 is another option) either thru big companies like TCS, Wipro or Infy or through desi consulting firms. Pls do not forget the fact that USCIS changed their stand now and saying that it is not legal to work else where other than employer location. If they implement that rule from start then this mess wouldn't happen.
Now, we are in trouble and so stop finger pointing and give any good advise if you can.
FYI..I am an FTE and I came to us thru a multinational firm and never worked for a desi consulting cmpny.
Is benching that happens in consulting legal? Is paying salary according to prevailing wages in Maine and sending the contractor to work in Manhattan legal? Please tell me how these practises by desi consulting firms are legal.
And you're telling me I am ignorant! You're funny :D
I am sorry, I am not a very knowledgeable person in immigration matters like many of you, but when it comes to finger pointing, we have to show all consulting companies and why only DESI companies are getting into this discussion. I know friends who worked for IBM & KPMG on H1b travels to all states for short term contracts. What about those biggies? They are also desi firms?
How did you come to US in the first place? if not thru a consulting company ( I know F1 is another option) either thru big companies like TCS, Wipro or Infy or through desi consulting firms. Pls do not forget the fact that USCIS changed their stand now and saying that it is not legal to work else where other than employer location. If they implement that rule from start then this mess wouldn't happen.
Now, we are in trouble and so stop finger pointing and give any good advise if you can.
FYI..I am an FTE and I came to us thru a multinational firm and never worked for a desi consulting cmpny.
dresses Blank Sign Post With Pointed
I am still confused about the whole GC issue in buying and selling a home. Why is GC an issue in owing property or even taking overseas vacations? I have done both with absolutely no issues-caribbeans, europe, India. I have owned a home, and then decided to change jobs-move to a different city and sell my house. Heck I sold my house when I was on vacation in India. I did everything by phone and fax, and this is not some few years ago, this is 2 months ago.
I totally agree with the fact that location and the condition of the house being the key factors. Maybe the fact that I have been here for a few years makes me resident alien for tax purposes helped me? I am not entirely sure.
Folks mentioned that what if you lose your job, and have to leave the country etc. But like I mentioned a house can be sold from abroad. And if you have a GC and you lose ur job, how will you make mortgage payments etc. So some problems will stay the same.
Any thoughts/comments on my dilema?
Perhaps someone can elaborate on why GC is a factor?
Cheers.
I totally agree with the fact that location and the condition of the house being the key factors. Maybe the fact that I have been here for a few years makes me resident alien for tax purposes helped me? I am not entirely sure.
Folks mentioned that what if you lose your job, and have to leave the country etc. But like I mentioned a house can be sold from abroad. And if you have a GC and you lose ur job, how will you make mortgage payments etc. So some problems will stay the same.
Any thoughts/comments on my dilema?
Perhaps someone can elaborate on why GC is a factor?
Cheers.
makeup lank signpost clipart. lank
It's just not all media hype. I live in fairfax county and in the last 3 months any house that was listed at market price got sold. I have 3 friends that bought houses in the last few months.
In Arlington County, the median sale price was up 11 percent to $469,000 and 239 homes were sold — up nearly 5 percent from the same month a year ago.
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/06/08/daily55.html
I am not saying that this is the right time to buy or anything like that. All I am saying is "Its just not media hype".
Guys.. stay put for now..
Did you hear that home sales are up! All these media and those streaky economists and so called "housing experts" claiming in the news channels for past couple of weeks?.. that is media messing around with people's head.. I was looking at the public records for home sales and found that a huge portion of current homes sales are nothing but LOW END old homes between (75K to 150K).. Only a neglegable percentage are the ones between (200K and above). This is exactly what media doesn't speak about.. they conveniently skip this part when they report on home sales lately...
Its the gotcha guys.. now they started to increase price a bit.. banks are pushing up interest rates to create a scenario where people are made to believe soon, its going to be out of reach again.. so grab one now.. and get that $8000 credit for yourself.. What they are trying to do is, create an artificial demand.. We all know that it isn't going anywhere.. by Q409.. we will see the prices again going south.. only thing they can do is delay the natural correction during this summer.. Its going to happen any way.. and by end of fall into winter, it is highly expected to reach the floor and stabilize during 2010 spring and summer ( average price in the range of 4 times disposible annual income), if not further decline as we saw in certain areas of california and florida..
When you are in the market for a home, do not go by these general claims by media folks.. brokers and realtors who fake the confidence.. you will have to segment and compare the specs to sales price with in your choice of segment.. (such as..homes below 200K, between 200K to 300K, 300K to 400K and so on.) Public records are available online for almost all the counties in US, you can pull that up to see whats going on in your area before you jump into conclusion. This will give us a better feel of the market and even better, bargain opportunity.
In Arlington County, the median sale price was up 11 percent to $469,000 and 239 homes were sold — up nearly 5 percent from the same month a year ago.
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/06/08/daily55.html
I am not saying that this is the right time to buy or anything like that. All I am saying is "Its just not media hype".
Guys.. stay put for now..
Did you hear that home sales are up! All these media and those streaky economists and so called "housing experts" claiming in the news channels for past couple of weeks?.. that is media messing around with people's head.. I was looking at the public records for home sales and found that a huge portion of current homes sales are nothing but LOW END old homes between (75K to 150K).. Only a neglegable percentage are the ones between (200K and above). This is exactly what media doesn't speak about.. they conveniently skip this part when they report on home sales lately...
Its the gotcha guys.. now they started to increase price a bit.. banks are pushing up interest rates to create a scenario where people are made to believe soon, its going to be out of reach again.. so grab one now.. and get that $8000 credit for yourself.. What they are trying to do is, create an artificial demand.. We all know that it isn't going anywhere.. by Q409.. we will see the prices again going south.. only thing they can do is delay the natural correction during this summer.. Its going to happen any way.. and by end of fall into winter, it is highly expected to reach the floor and stabilize during 2010 spring and summer ( average price in the range of 4 times disposible annual income), if not further decline as we saw in certain areas of california and florida..
When you are in the market for a home, do not go by these general claims by media folks.. brokers and realtors who fake the confidence.. you will have to segment and compare the specs to sales price with in your choice of segment.. (such as..homes below 200K, between 200K to 300K, 300K to 400K and so on.) Public records are available online for almost all the counties in US, you can pull that up to see whats going on in your area before you jump into conclusion. This will give us a better feel of the market and even better, bargain opportunity.
girlfriend hair lank signpost clipart.
Precisely my point! Majority of EB immigrants are pro-Democratic party and possible future contributors to Obama 2012 campaign.
Why then should Obama support anti-EB measures that will hurt his chances in the future, when he'll get no benefits by supporting those measures?
Hope better sense prevails!
And you think majority of those ppl will get Voting rights by 2012....forget it...Most of the ppl here are lucky to get tehir GreeN Card by 2012....
There is no reasoin for him to pander future voters......He will be most likely agnostic to EB issues, however, as noted..if Durbin is his Immigration advisor..then we are toast...so pray for the best...
Why then should Obama support anti-EB measures that will hurt his chances in the future, when he'll get no benefits by supporting those measures?
Hope better sense prevails!
And you think majority of those ppl will get Voting rights by 2012....forget it...Most of the ppl here are lucky to get tehir GreeN Card by 2012....
There is no reasoin for him to pander future voters......He will be most likely agnostic to EB issues, however, as noted..if Durbin is his Immigration advisor..then we are toast...so pray for the best...
hairstyles on lank signpost clipart.
I like that splitting the overflow across EB2-EB3 idea. That does make it a lot more fair to a lot of people. Its not right that people with 2001 PD still dont have an approval (I have a 2006 PD, but have been here for ~8 years, so I know how frustrating it is to wait so long on temporary status)
At the outset, I am not against EB3, but lets think about this for a moment. Any logic that we use to break up spillover between EB2 and EB3 can also easily be applied to EB1 and EB2. I'll repeat an earlier post of mine. "How can EB1 of 2008 get the GC immediately when EB2-I (in my case) has to wait for more than 4 years - clearly preference is at play here".
Any split will artificially retrogress EB2 more than what it otherwise would have. Similarly one can always argue to artificially retrogress EB1 to give more visas to EB2 just because someone from EB2 is waiting for 4 years.
Isnt that against the law. Any break up of spill over visas invalidates the category preference as per current law.
Please also note that any unfavorable change to the EB1 category based on a hypothetical approval of an EB2/EB3 break up will invite the attention of Fortune 500 companies and prestigious research/educational institutions (who use EB1 the most) with all their political and financial resources at their disposal. That could put a halt to everything.
Irrational passion calls for dispassionate rationality.
At the outset, I am not against EB3, but lets think about this for a moment. Any logic that we use to break up spillover between EB2 and EB3 can also easily be applied to EB1 and EB2. I'll repeat an earlier post of mine. "How can EB1 of 2008 get the GC immediately when EB2-I (in my case) has to wait for more than 4 years - clearly preference is at play here".
Any split will artificially retrogress EB2 more than what it otherwise would have. Similarly one can always argue to artificially retrogress EB1 to give more visas to EB2 just because someone from EB2 is waiting for 4 years.
Isnt that against the law. Any break up of spill over visas invalidates the category preference as per current law.
Please also note that any unfavorable change to the EB1 category based on a hypothetical approval of an EB2/EB3 break up will invite the attention of Fortune 500 companies and prestigious research/educational institutions (who use EB1 the most) with all their political and financial resources at their disposal. That could put a halt to everything.
Irrational passion calls for dispassionate rationality.
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
this is from schiller ..an economist ..I am sure he knows more about housing than others ..I guess this is a worse case scenario (if not the worst).
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080422/economy_shiller.html?.v=2
----
Economist cautions housing slump could exceed drop of the Great Depression, require bailouts
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- An influential economist who long predicted the housing market bubble cautioned Tuesday that the slump in the U.S. housing market could cause prices to fall more than they did in the Great Depression and bailouts will be needed so millions don't lose their homes.
Yale University economist Robert Shiller, pioneer of the widely watched Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index, said there's a good chance housing prices will fall further than the 30 percent drop in the historic depression of the 1930s. Home prices nationwide already have dropped 15 percent since their peak in 2006, he said.
"I think there is a scenario that they could be down substantially more," Shiller said during a speech at the New Haven Lawn Club.
Shiller's Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index is considered a strong measure of home prices because it examines price changes of the same property over time, instead of calculating a median price of homes sold during the month.
Shiller, who admitted he has a reputation for being bearish, said real estate cycles typically take years to correct.
Home prices rose about 85 percent from 1997 to 2006 adjusted for inflation, the biggest national housing boom in U.S. history, Shiller said.
"Basically we're in uncharted territory," Shiller said. "It seems we have developed a speculative culture about housing that never existed on a national basis before."
Many people became convinced that housing prices would increase 10 percent annually, a notion Shiller called crazy.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080422/economy_shiller.html?.v=2
----
Economist cautions housing slump could exceed drop of the Great Depression, require bailouts
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- An influential economist who long predicted the housing market bubble cautioned Tuesday that the slump in the U.S. housing market could cause prices to fall more than they did in the Great Depression and bailouts will be needed so millions don't lose their homes.
Yale University economist Robert Shiller, pioneer of the widely watched Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index, said there's a good chance housing prices will fall further than the 30 percent drop in the historic depression of the 1930s. Home prices nationwide already have dropped 15 percent since their peak in 2006, he said.
"I think there is a scenario that they could be down substantially more," Shiller said during a speech at the New Haven Lawn Club.
Shiller's Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index is considered a strong measure of home prices because it examines price changes of the same property over time, instead of calculating a median price of homes sold during the month.
Shiller, who admitted he has a reputation for being bearish, said real estate cycles typically take years to correct.
Home prices rose about 85 percent from 1997 to 2006 adjusted for inflation, the biggest national housing boom in U.S. history, Shiller said.
"Basically we're in uncharted territory," Shiller said. "It seems we have developed a speculative culture about housing that never existed on a national basis before."
Many people became convinced that housing prices would increase 10 percent annually, a notion Shiller called crazy.
