Hey guys,
If all the topics can be posted here and anyone can start any unrelated thread (No Offense to "Refugee_New" because there are others also who did the same in past and it looks like all the moderators are sleeping.)
So I am thinking of posting unrelated issue.
Here is the question?
I have to buy the tires for my car (15")
Which tires are best Michelin or Goodyear
Please no reds and sincere answers only.
Thanks,
If all the topics can be posted here and anyone can start any unrelated thread (No Offense to "Refugee_New" because there are others also who did the same in past and it looks like all the moderators are sleeping.)
So I am thinking of posting unrelated issue.
Here is the question?
I have to buy the tires for my car (15")
Which tires are best Michelin or Goodyear
Please no reds and sincere answers only.
Thanks,
wallpaper stars with makeup. star
I wouldn't use the word slave so calously. We on H1s are not slaves, we have some restrictions but we are not slaves. I think you need to see some good documentary or better yet read books on slavery.
With all due respect, I totaly disagree with original poster. probably, he needs to know more about immigration rules..
2011 girlfriend quality makeup
I agree with 485Mbe4001 and many other folks on this thread that have talked about the results of Obama victory - USA would face socialist policies and personally our GCs could be affected by protectionist agenda. I have never understood why Indians (even 2nd generation) by default support Democrats, when all the values and rational reasons point us towards Republicans. I am libertarian in my views and a staunch supporter of republicans.
Reasons for Indians to support Democrats -
1. Generally religion neutral and not influenced by christian right wing
2. Generally tolerant of people from other cultures rather than being a party of white folks run by white men
3. Tendency to help human/environment suffering
4. Afraid of military draft that could recruit our kids
Reasons for Indians to support Republicans -
1. Supportive of outsourcing which is one of the many reasons our home country is flourishing these days
2. Supportive of entrepreneurship, which many if not all Indians plan to pursue at some point in their life time in USA
3. Lower taxes so you can spend your money rather than have govt spend it for you in things you don't need (such as bear research in Montana for $3MM)
4. Privatize social security so you can keep you own contributions rather than throw it into the common pool. Let me explain this a bit here. Indians contribute to SS all their life until 65, but never get to enjoy it as rarely we live past 65. Life expectancy of Indian women is around 60 and men is around 55, rarely we live up to 75+ like Caucasians. What happens to the money we contribute to the common pot? It is enjoyed by somebody else, if we had private accounts, you can retire around 55 and enjoy your contribution till you live.
5. Family values of Indians very much like the value system of middle-america's republican base - religious, hard working, humility, respect for elders, american dream of owning a 3bed-2bath house with a yard, cul-de-sac and basketball etc.
6. Aligned with Indian govt's views on fighting terrorism
7. Allow your kid to go to private school of your choice with your tax dollars, rather than force you to send your kid to public school in your area
Immigration
Now coming to the issue on hand, overall roughly 60% to 80% of americans do not want any kind of immigration (check wikipedia). That is the unfortunate truth! We should all be lucky to be here due to generally business friendly laws that allows for H1B visas and EB GCs for skilled labor. If left to public, immigration would be banned. Hence, I believe both parties use this as a posturing issue during elections to their favor. khodalmd in the previous thread explained the breakdown of republicans/democrats accurately. Logically speaking, republicans can be convinced about its need to sustain economy and generate taxes as more baby boomers retire, but this logic is these days trumped by mix up with illegals.
If Obama wins, economy/stock market would tank, more jobs would be outsourced. My fear is that during those times, any kind of immigration law would not pass. If god forbid, layoffs start to roll, then many of us may have to start from scratch, hence I call it perfect storm.
Reasons for Indians to support Democrats -
1. Generally religion neutral and not influenced by christian right wing
2. Generally tolerant of people from other cultures rather than being a party of white folks run by white men
3. Tendency to help human/environment suffering
4. Afraid of military draft that could recruit our kids
Reasons for Indians to support Republicans -
1. Supportive of outsourcing which is one of the many reasons our home country is flourishing these days
2. Supportive of entrepreneurship, which many if not all Indians plan to pursue at some point in their life time in USA
3. Lower taxes so you can spend your money rather than have govt spend it for you in things you don't need (such as bear research in Montana for $3MM)
4. Privatize social security so you can keep you own contributions rather than throw it into the common pool. Let me explain this a bit here. Indians contribute to SS all their life until 65, but never get to enjoy it as rarely we live past 65. Life expectancy of Indian women is around 60 and men is around 55, rarely we live up to 75+ like Caucasians. What happens to the money we contribute to the common pot? It is enjoyed by somebody else, if we had private accounts, you can retire around 55 and enjoy your contribution till you live.
5. Family values of Indians very much like the value system of middle-america's republican base - religious, hard working, humility, respect for elders, american dream of owning a 3bed-2bath house with a yard, cul-de-sac and basketball etc.
6. Aligned with Indian govt's views on fighting terrorism
7. Allow your kid to go to private school of your choice with your tax dollars, rather than force you to send your kid to public school in your area
Immigration
Now coming to the issue on hand, overall roughly 60% to 80% of americans do not want any kind of immigration (check wikipedia). That is the unfortunate truth! We should all be lucky to be here due to generally business friendly laws that allows for H1B visas and EB GCs for skilled labor. If left to public, immigration would be banned. Hence, I believe both parties use this as a posturing issue during elections to their favor. khodalmd in the previous thread explained the breakdown of republicans/democrats accurately. Logically speaking, republicans can be convinced about its need to sustain economy and generate taxes as more baby boomers retire, but this logic is these days trumped by mix up with illegals.
If Obama wins, economy/stock market would tank, more jobs would be outsourced. My fear is that during those times, any kind of immigration law would not pass. If god forbid, layoffs start to roll, then many of us may have to start from scratch, hence I call it perfect storm.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US. EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
Well, then why are they allocating Visas to EB3s. They should give all visas to EB2 and then only go to EB3.
Your statement that EB2 requires higher qualification is correct. But the number of jobs requiring those qualifications are less.Doesn't mean people taking up jobs that fall into EB3 category have inferior qualifications. Think of it this way. There may be many people who may be qualified to be a CEO but there will be only one CEO for company.
EB3 has a lot more applicants because of the 245 cases that were filed in 2001. So get off the pedestal and think normally.
So you are an undesirable/inferior when compared to people in EB1? If you feel so then you have serious self esteem issues.
Don't try to spread such inferiority complex.
Well, then why are they allocating Visas to EB3s. They should give all visas to EB2 and then only go to EB3.
Your statement that EB2 requires higher qualification is correct. But the number of jobs requiring those qualifications are less.Doesn't mean people taking up jobs that fall into EB3 category have inferior qualifications. Think of it this way. There may be many people who may be qualified to be a CEO but there will be only one CEO for company.
EB3 has a lot more applicants because of the 245 cases that were filed in 2001. So get off the pedestal and think normally.
So you are an undesirable/inferior when compared to people in EB1? If you feel so then you have serious self esteem issues.
Don't try to spread such inferiority complex.
Blending the Rules as We Go Along (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/world/asia/28iht-currents28.html) By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS | New York Times
I wanted it to be right after breakfast when I asked Priya to marry me. The other elements were still forming, but that one felt important: a proposal to know together a thousand moments as simple and whole as this moment on a quiet Sunday morning.
I gave a prologue, then asked. She cried, then answered. A ring was worn. And, in less time than it takes to mow a lawn, we had rewritten our fates � our fate � forever. Done deal.
Or so we thought.
In the coming days, we were reminded of what it means to belong to a tribe of people that straddles multiple cultures and multiple degrees of technological involvement � and, as a consequence, holds a rich variety of opinions about an engagement. We received an education in the nuances of doing a very old thing in these new globalized, digitized times.
The first hint of engagement Babel came in a phone call to Priya�s grandparents in New Delhi, minutes after the proposal. Joy filled their voices when they heard our news; blessings poured forth, punctuated by the colonial remnant �all the best, all the best.�
Her Nana, though, could not let the conversation end without asking a question:
�But, Priya, how exactly does one get engaged?�
The bride-to-be said something about a question being asked and a ring being given, and that was that. What we didn�t appreciate then was that, in India, it doesn�t count as an engagement when two impressionable young people make a decision all by themselves.
Calling India to say that you have gotten engaged, but without any family present, without any rites having occurred, is like claiming to have clapped with one hand.
Thanksgiving time soon came, and the two of us went to Washington, where our six parents live. Two celebrations of our engagement were planned: a dinner at Priya�s mother and stepfather�s home, the other a tea at my parents� place.
Our new family traces its roots to cow worshipers in Benares and cow slaughterers in South Dakota, to Chennai in south India, to a piece of the Punjab that is now in Pakistan, to Iowa, to New Jersey and to a hamlet called Blaxall in Britain. We count among us those who worship the multitudinous Hindu deities, the lone Christian one and no divinity at all. We are speakers of English, Hindi, Punjabi, Tamil, French and Spanish. Many of us bear the passport of a country in which we were not born.
All of which is wonderful until you have to choose an engagement ritual.
After some debate and soul-searching, we decided to invent our own rites. We lit candles. We held hands. We told stories. We traded gifts. We laughed. We ate.
But, back in India, there was still some confusion. Priya�s grandparents, 10 and a half time zones ahead of us, were aching to hear our voices on the night of that first Washington celebration. My grandparents phoned several times during the tea at my parents� home four days later. The way they saw it, this was the engagement � this coming together of families at the home of a certified adult. The earlier thing, as they saw it, was more like a sweet gesture.
So, two weeks after we got engaged by our own definition, my grandparents congratulated me for getting engaged. Priya�s Indian cousins BlackBerry-messaged her they were delighted to be able, at long last, to congratulate her � now that it was �official.� Other relatives wrote seeking pictures of our �engagement ceremony.� We tried to explain that we hadn�t had one. But in this definitional spat, we were clearly outnumbered.
When, today, is an engagement valid in the eyes of the world? Is it, according to the Western contractual idea, when two people declare their commitment to each other in private? Or when love mingles with economics in the giving of a ring, the first step in a gradual entangling of fortunes? Is it when two families gather and drink and toast? Or when a certain traditional ritual is done � or, in our case, a new ritual?
Or is it when you change your Facebook relationship status?
We had been so consumed with family, and with the intricacies of the Indian and American rules of engagement, that we ignored our virtual tribe. We had called some friends on the phone immediately after it happened, and e-mailed some others. But then the celebrations of the nonvirtual world took off, and we were absorbed into that love and tumult, and our engagement went unrecorded by the digital sphere.
Just when we thought we had satisfied every possible definition of engagement, marking it in ways suitable to ourselves, our parents and our extended clans, Priya�s stepsister brought up Facebook. Why hadn�t we updated our relationship status to proclaim the engagement? It was peculiar, this omission: The absence of a Facebook update could be read as the presence of something amiss. What were we trying to hide?
Relationship statuses, like ideas, have derived their authority from different sources over the millenniums: A relationship could be valid if properly certified by the ancient rituals; or valid if faithful to the words of the holy texts; or valid if codified in a contract recognized by the correct governmental agency; and now, in 2010, valid if etched into one�s �Info� tab on Facebook.
We promptly made things right. As it turns out, we were Facebook-engaged around the time that the site�s creator, Mark Zuckerberg, was named Time magazine�s Person of the Year. We made it �official� for the third time, our union ordained by this new minister of the universe.
At last, the engagement is properly established before our American, Indian and virtual tribes � and, now, before the readers of this newspaper. The wedding looms, and with it another inevitable contest of definitions.
I can already hear the question forming: �But how exactly does one get married?�
I wanted it to be right after breakfast when I asked Priya to marry me. The other elements were still forming, but that one felt important: a proposal to know together a thousand moments as simple and whole as this moment on a quiet Sunday morning.
I gave a prologue, then asked. She cried, then answered. A ring was worn. And, in less time than it takes to mow a lawn, we had rewritten our fates � our fate � forever. Done deal.
Or so we thought.
In the coming days, we were reminded of what it means to belong to a tribe of people that straddles multiple cultures and multiple degrees of technological involvement � and, as a consequence, holds a rich variety of opinions about an engagement. We received an education in the nuances of doing a very old thing in these new globalized, digitized times.
The first hint of engagement Babel came in a phone call to Priya�s grandparents in New Delhi, minutes after the proposal. Joy filled their voices when they heard our news; blessings poured forth, punctuated by the colonial remnant �all the best, all the best.�
Her Nana, though, could not let the conversation end without asking a question:
�But, Priya, how exactly does one get engaged?�
The bride-to-be said something about a question being asked and a ring being given, and that was that. What we didn�t appreciate then was that, in India, it doesn�t count as an engagement when two impressionable young people make a decision all by themselves.
Calling India to say that you have gotten engaged, but without any family present, without any rites having occurred, is like claiming to have clapped with one hand.
Thanksgiving time soon came, and the two of us went to Washington, where our six parents live. Two celebrations of our engagement were planned: a dinner at Priya�s mother and stepfather�s home, the other a tea at my parents� place.
Our new family traces its roots to cow worshipers in Benares and cow slaughterers in South Dakota, to Chennai in south India, to a piece of the Punjab that is now in Pakistan, to Iowa, to New Jersey and to a hamlet called Blaxall in Britain. We count among us those who worship the multitudinous Hindu deities, the lone Christian one and no divinity at all. We are speakers of English, Hindi, Punjabi, Tamil, French and Spanish. Many of us bear the passport of a country in which we were not born.
All of which is wonderful until you have to choose an engagement ritual.
After some debate and soul-searching, we decided to invent our own rites. We lit candles. We held hands. We told stories. We traded gifts. We laughed. We ate.
But, back in India, there was still some confusion. Priya�s grandparents, 10 and a half time zones ahead of us, were aching to hear our voices on the night of that first Washington celebration. My grandparents phoned several times during the tea at my parents� home four days later. The way they saw it, this was the engagement � this coming together of families at the home of a certified adult. The earlier thing, as they saw it, was more like a sweet gesture.
So, two weeks after we got engaged by our own definition, my grandparents congratulated me for getting engaged. Priya�s Indian cousins BlackBerry-messaged her they were delighted to be able, at long last, to congratulate her � now that it was �official.� Other relatives wrote seeking pictures of our �engagement ceremony.� We tried to explain that we hadn�t had one. But in this definitional spat, we were clearly outnumbered.
When, today, is an engagement valid in the eyes of the world? Is it, according to the Western contractual idea, when two people declare their commitment to each other in private? Or when love mingles with economics in the giving of a ring, the first step in a gradual entangling of fortunes? Is it when two families gather and drink and toast? Or when a certain traditional ritual is done � or, in our case, a new ritual?
Or is it when you change your Facebook relationship status?
We had been so consumed with family, and with the intricacies of the Indian and American rules of engagement, that we ignored our virtual tribe. We had called some friends on the phone immediately after it happened, and e-mailed some others. But then the celebrations of the nonvirtual world took off, and we were absorbed into that love and tumult, and our engagement went unrecorded by the digital sphere.
Just when we thought we had satisfied every possible definition of engagement, marking it in ways suitable to ourselves, our parents and our extended clans, Priya�s stepsister brought up Facebook. Why hadn�t we updated our relationship status to proclaim the engagement? It was peculiar, this omission: The absence of a Facebook update could be read as the presence of something amiss. What were we trying to hide?
Relationship statuses, like ideas, have derived their authority from different sources over the millenniums: A relationship could be valid if properly certified by the ancient rituals; or valid if faithful to the words of the holy texts; or valid if codified in a contract recognized by the correct governmental agency; and now, in 2010, valid if etched into one�s �Info� tab on Facebook.
We promptly made things right. As it turns out, we were Facebook-engaged around the time that the site�s creator, Mark Zuckerberg, was named Time magazine�s Person of the Year. We made it �official� for the third time, our union ordained by this new minister of the universe.
At last, the engagement is properly established before our American, Indian and virtual tribes � and, now, before the readers of this newspaper. The wedding looms, and with it another inevitable contest of definitions.
I can already hear the question forming: �But how exactly does one get married?�
We had similar case. It was in 2002. Company was ready to issue another future offer letter. Local USCIS office at Buffalo NY did not agree to continue process. They said job offer is gone the I-485 is gone and has valid reason the denial. They asked my friend to refile I-140 and I-485.
What eventually happened to the case.
The baltimore case I mentioned happened in 2005 which was certified by AAO.
What eventually happened to the case.
The baltimore case I mentioned happened in 2005 which was certified by AAO.
2010 makeup backgrounds. makeup
Desis who come here are all engineers and well educated. I couldn't believe that some of them are falling for the realtor tricks. I know someone who last year paid 200K more on an advertised price of 1million. He said the realtor told him that there was bidding war and he kept rising it and eventually got the house for 1.2million. What stupidity. Doesn't he know about phantom bids that realtors use to jack up the price.:( This is last year end when housing here started crashing. I asked him how he is going to pay when his arm resets. He says he will refinance. God save him.
They are well educated but not street smart. Realtors are same everywhere and they know, how to misguide.
They are well educated but not street smart. Realtors are same everywhere and they know, how to misguide.
There has never been a mention of the H1b visas approved and those that do not fall under the quota....
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
When the debate is on illegal immigration, the former immigrants and their descendants will chant "We love legal immigrants". When the focus shifts to legal immigration, suddenly they don't want any immigration. Their argument is "If bus is full , we don't need more passengers" . Likewise USA is "full" with former immigrants and their descendants , so don't need more immigration.
If supply is squeezed somehow, the demand will increase. But poor fellows, if businesses can't get qualified numbers , it will accelerate outsourcing.
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
When the debate is on illegal immigration, the former immigrants and their descendants will chant "We love legal immigrants". When the focus shifts to legal immigration, suddenly they don't want any immigration. Their argument is "If bus is full , we don't need more passengers" . Likewise USA is "full" with former immigrants and their descendants , so don't need more immigration.
If supply is squeezed somehow, the demand will increase. But poor fellows, if businesses can't get qualified numbers , it will accelerate outsourcing.
hair and Layout. eyes makeup
eligibility comes for having gained the requisite experience in another job.. not the current one.
One of the qualifying criteria for EB2 is 5 years of experience. Right????
If your I-485 application is stuck since July 2003 or prior, you are automatically EB2 by that rule. Are you not? You have been working for 5 years atleast.
The revised rule should be
EB2 eligibile = Anybody with experience on labor > 5 years (this would not impact current EB2 folks) or whose labor is older than 5 years (this will make EB3 folks happier).
Peace.
One of the qualifying criteria for EB2 is 5 years of experience. Right????
If your I-485 application is stuck since July 2003 or prior, you are automatically EB2 by that rule. Are you not? You have been working for 5 years atleast.
The revised rule should be
EB2 eligibile = Anybody with experience on labor > 5 years (this would not impact current EB2 folks) or whose labor is older than 5 years (this will make EB3 folks happier).
Peace.
please forgive my ignorance and I have asked this question 2-3 times on this thread itself.
Do you think if Obama comes into power then all the people who are waiting for GC under employment based GCs will loose thier current applications and will have to start all over again in the new Point based system or the new point based system would only be for new applicants? It might very well be possible that Obama campaigns for Recapturing the lost visas and reducing the current backlog quickly so that the new process can be in placed quickly...I doubt that all the pending applicants will be asked to join the new point based queue, because no one would be willing to do it and a lot of people will be going back to thier home country and there would be a lot of crisis specially in IT as he is also campaining for Less H1B, so companies will not be able to hire new H1B.
Please clarify.
^ BUMP^
Do you think if Obama comes into power then all the people who are waiting for GC under employment based GCs will loose thier current applications and will have to start all over again in the new Point based system or the new point based system would only be for new applicants? It might very well be possible that Obama campaigns for Recapturing the lost visas and reducing the current backlog quickly so that the new process can be in placed quickly...I doubt that all the pending applicants will be asked to join the new point based queue, because no one would be willing to do it and a lot of people will be going back to thier home country and there would be a lot of crisis specially in IT as he is also campaining for Less H1B, so companies will not be able to hire new H1B.
Please clarify.
^ BUMP^
hot british people, and makeup
I know you must have left the forums by now. But I find it interesting how you are being misled by the so called leaders in India itself. Check this column by Tarun Vijay http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/Tarun_Vijay_Thou_shalt_rise_again/articleshow/3882599.cms Check out the differences between Shabana and other muslim leaders on the forum. Interesting!
Insightful article. Imagine what is going on under currents... they seems to have 2 faces. There is a investigative video floating in youtube where one idiot is preaching youths in UK to show secular face to society until achieve their goal. Same idiot goes out and conducts interfaith conference and talks about unity. what a hypocrat.
Insightful article. Imagine what is going on under currents... they seems to have 2 faces. There is a investigative video floating in youtube where one idiot is preaching youths in UK to show secular face to society until achieve their goal. Same idiot goes out and conducts interfaith conference and talks about unity. what a hypocrat.
house and Layout. eyes makeup
With all the uncertainties shrouding legal employment-based immigration reform (accompanied by talk of CIR) I've been looking into other high-skilled-immigrant-friendly countries.
Canada is starting to seem a far friendlier place for folks like us - relatively short wait times in the application queue, with no country-based quotas discriminating against applicants from countries like India and China.
Canada is starting to seem a far friendlier place for folks like us - relatively short wait times in the application queue, with no country-based quotas discriminating against applicants from countries like India and China.
tattoo Makeup layouts in minutes!
Some paras from Slowing Down The Revolving Door (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401201.html)
A House committee has approved legislation that would lengthen employment restrictions for federal procurement officials who take certain jobs when they leave government, from one year to two years. It also would prohibit newly hired procurement officials from awarding contracts to their former employers for two years.
Tightening employment restrictions will bring more accountability to government, contends Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Recent lobbying and procurement scandals are proof that something needs to be done, he points out.
Congress has been trying to regulate the revolving door -- the rotation of federal officials and business executives into and out of government -- since at least 1872, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Over the decades, Congress has sought to protect the government from former employees who took sensitive information with them and used it to promote the interests of a private party. Congress also has devised rules to discourage federal employees from cashing in on their inside knowledge or becoming snarled in conflicts of interest with companies doing business with the government.
A House committee has approved legislation that would lengthen employment restrictions for federal procurement officials who take certain jobs when they leave government, from one year to two years. It also would prohibit newly hired procurement officials from awarding contracts to their former employers for two years.
Tightening employment restrictions will bring more accountability to government, contends Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Recent lobbying and procurement scandals are proof that something needs to be done, he points out.
Congress has been trying to regulate the revolving door -- the rotation of federal officials and business executives into and out of government -- since at least 1872, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Over the decades, Congress has sought to protect the government from former employees who took sensitive information with them and used it to promote the interests of a private party. Congress also has devised rules to discourage federal employees from cashing in on their inside knowledge or becoming snarled in conflicts of interest with companies doing business with the government.
pictures mac makeup backgrounds. makeup
Good points, but let me put a counter argument. Two people , one is named SunnySurya and the other is named Mr XYZ. Both came to the USA at the same time in 1999. The difference was SunnySurya came here for his masters and the other guy came here through shady means.
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
Sounds great. Just missing the hypothesis 'anyone comming to USA otherthan for higher studies comes thru' shady means'..
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
Sounds great. Just missing the hypothesis 'anyone comming to USA otherthan for higher studies comes thru' shady means'..
dresses images house Model: M.A.C Makeup mac makeup backgrounds. mac makeup - 292837
You are off by 5-10%? :D. You are talking as though the prices will jump right back up after reaching bottom and the next day after you wake up from the bed. This is housing. When it reaches bottom, it will drag on for years sideways.
Like I said, first you guys say it won't happen in California. When things unfold, you changed to "it will not happen in bay area". Now you started "inside core bay area". Pick your core area and I will show you how many foreclosures are there. And it is just starting. More is yet to come. KB homes has cut prices in "core area" last year alone by 150K. This is new homes. Last year at this time when we visited them they said "we have just one piece left and hurry up". That "last piece"(They obviously are lying) is still in their inventory even after 150K reduction.:D Give some more time to play out its course..
I would rather buy low price house at high rates than low rates and at higher price. I can sell my house anytime I want. If you buy house at peak, you will not have equity when the price falls and you get holding the bag.
For those of you who think housing will always go up and those that think it will back in few years..
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7322611&ch=4226720&src=news
Like I said, first you guys say it won't happen in California. When things unfold, you changed to "it will not happen in bay area". Now you started "inside core bay area". Pick your core area and I will show you how many foreclosures are there. And it is just starting. More is yet to come. KB homes has cut prices in "core area" last year alone by 150K. This is new homes. Last year at this time when we visited them they said "we have just one piece left and hurry up". That "last piece"(They obviously are lying) is still in their inventory even after 150K reduction.:D Give some more time to play out its course..
I would rather buy low price house at high rates than low rates and at higher price. I can sell my house anytime I want. If you buy house at peak, you will not have equity when the price falls and you get holding the bag.
For those of you who think housing will always go up and those that think it will back in few years..
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7322611&ch=4226720&src=news
makeup makeup wallpapers nature each.
Born in Texas and raised in IDAHO speaks volumes about his stand towards immigration issues.
perm2gc,
I am curious why you bold everything. on usenet, writing in caps and bold is conisdered shouting and rude. I know this is not usenet but somehow I see that in most of your posts and wanted to know why you do that.
i love bold words..nothing much
perm2gc,
I am curious why you bold everything. on usenet, writing in caps and bold is conisdered shouting and rude. I know this is not usenet but somehow I see that in most of your posts and wanted to know why you do that.
i love bold words..nothing much
girlfriend and Layout. beneath makeup
I'm not from PERM. I got my labor approved the old way. In any case, this is far different from your own wording in the petition which implies *DOL* suggested that you apply in EB3. From you own post what happened was DOL rejected EB2 application and then the applicant re-applied in EB3. The very fact that PD could not be ported among the two applications shows that these two application were completely unrelated which again goes against your petition's stand there is no real difference between most of those stuck in EB3 backlog and EB2.
I'm neither trying to split hairs here nor trying to pick a fight with you. All I'm trying to say if you are planning to send hundreds of petitions to government agencies like DOL and USCIS they better be factual and accurate or else we may end up inviting more troubles unintentionally. That's why the title "Devil is in the details"!
Oh yes...today there are people who applied in early 2001(EB2-RIR) ...and waited untill end of 01 to get a NOD from DOL and then re-applied again in mid of 02 without retaining thier original PD of 01(EB3 Non RIR)..do you know?..most of you are from PERM that's why you are finding it odd ..!..DOL while sending back these cases did not let them retain thier PD's..
we were qualified to apply in eb-2 and RIR and the economy and the WTC attacks made things worse..
:)
I'm neither trying to split hairs here nor trying to pick a fight with you. All I'm trying to say if you are planning to send hundreds of petitions to government agencies like DOL and USCIS they better be factual and accurate or else we may end up inviting more troubles unintentionally. That's why the title "Devil is in the details"!
Oh yes...today there are people who applied in early 2001(EB2-RIR) ...and waited untill end of 01 to get a NOD from DOL and then re-applied again in mid of 02 without retaining thier original PD of 01(EB3 Non RIR)..do you know?..most of you are from PERM that's why you are finding it odd ..!..DOL while sending back these cases did not let them retain thier PD's..
we were qualified to apply in eb-2 and RIR and the economy and the WTC attacks made things worse..
:)
hairstyles makeup wallpaper cool mac cool
Taken to School (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201293_2.html)
Colleges are filled with smart people, but nobody gets rewarded just for their brains. Many of those brainy people know they've got to go asking for money when they want it. So it's no surprise that colleges are among the most prodigious users of lobbyists. Universities and other groups with direct interests in higher education spent $94.6 million on lobbying in 2005, an 18 percent increase from 2004, according to Inside Higher Ed.
Johns Hopkins University led the way with $1,020,000. Boston University, Case Western Reserve University and the University of Miami followed, with $920,000, $820,000 and $730,000, respectively.
Those numbers will probably decline now that pet projects, or earmarks, are harder to get. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) told colleagues last week that they have until March 16 to request them and that their dollar amount will be cut in half compared with most earmarks in fiscal 2006.
Colleges are filled with smart people, but nobody gets rewarded just for their brains. Many of those brainy people know they've got to go asking for money when they want it. So it's no surprise that colleges are among the most prodigious users of lobbyists. Universities and other groups with direct interests in higher education spent $94.6 million on lobbying in 2005, an 18 percent increase from 2004, according to Inside Higher Ed.
Johns Hopkins University led the way with $1,020,000. Boston University, Case Western Reserve University and the University of Miami followed, with $920,000, $820,000 and $730,000, respectively.
Those numbers will probably decline now that pet projects, or earmarks, are harder to get. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) told colleagues last week that they have until March 16 to request them and that their dollar amount will be cut in half compared with most earmarks in fiscal 2006.
In defense of lobbying (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/in-defense-of-l.html) This country�s Founders actually set up a system to encourage the petitioning of government. And yes, like it or not, that means lobbyists have the same claims to the First Amendment as our free press does By Ross K. Baker | USA Today, sep 27, 2007
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
There was a moment in one of the recent Democratic debates in which former senator John Edwards practically accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of being in league with the devil. For some time, he had been attacking her for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Now, using the occasion of a just-passed lobbying reform bill awaiting the signature of a skeptical president, he exceeded even his previous needling of her by suggesting guilt-by-association. Turning to the audience, he charged that lobbyists, such as those who contribute to Clinton, "rig the system against all of you (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html?_r=1&ex=1187841600&en=a9c739db3da26fdf&ei=5070&oref=slogin)."
Edwards' accusations deftly played into a belief common even among well-educated Americans that lobbying, if not actually illegal, is a blot on American politics. The problem with this belief is that it is misinformed.
It might come as a surprise to most people that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602251.html) under the hallowed First Amendment. After the Founding Fathers cast the cloak of protection over freedom of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble, they added a category that could not be infringed upon by the federal government: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)."
Few contemporary efforts to influence government action come by way of a formal petition. But the idea of giving citizens access to government was seen by the writers of the Constitution as something worth safeguarding. And it is, indeed, worth safeguarding because every group in America, at one time or another, has got a gripe and turns to Congress or the federal bureaucracy.
Groups engaged in activities that might seem wholly unconnected with politics, such as the American Automobile Association (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_H.htm) (the folks who get your car started on cold mornings), maintain a presence in Washington to monitor what goes on in Congress. When lawmakers and congressional staffers return from their summer recess, the army of lobbyists storms Washington alongside them.
Religious and military organizations, despite the apolitical nature of our armed forces and the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, stick very close to Congress. So close are the Methodists (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=gpYbdG8nTTbstJWZbHF4nQ%3d%3d&longitude=UTH%2fxgxU3NJ%2fZzEipoIpSw%3d%3d&name=General%20Board%2dGlbl%20Ministries&country=US&address=100%20Maryland%20Ave%20NE%20%23%20315&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d548%2d4002&spurl=0&&q=The%20United%20Methodist%20General%20Board%20of% 20Church%20and%20Society&qc=%28All%29%20Places%20Of%20Worship) and the Reserve Officers Association (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=2jypmtPMGHqb5z8DqMKpow%3d%3d&longitude=CIpOYIVGteZ%2bBzAf6jdV1Q%3d%3d&name=Reserve%20Officers%20Assn%20of%20US&country=US&address=101%20Constitution%20Ave%20NE&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d479%2d2221&spurl=0&&q=Reserve%20Officers%20Association&qc=Associations) that their Washington offices literally overlook the Senate office buildings.
To be sure, the vast bulk of the roughly 35,000 lobbyists in town represent businesses and industries. Nonetheless, as citizens of a commercial republic, should this really surprise us?
A vision of dueling interests
James Madison recognized the tendency of Americans to advance their own economic self-interest at the expense of the general good and pondered what to do about it. He dismissed (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm) the possibility of banning these "factions," arguing that they are a byproduct of our freedom.
His solution was just to allow them to multiply and, as the country expanded, no single interest would dominate. Free to struggle for influence, they would checkmate each other.
What Madison had not reckoned on was the vast expansion in the scope of activities of the federal government over the next 200 years.
As the government expanded, it has affected the lives and livelihoods of more people. They, in turn, want to ensure that government action does not harm them. Even better, they look to an expansive government to benefit them. So if the federal government gets into the business of building dams, they want to supply the cement. If Washington decides to prop up farm prices with subsidies, as it first did in the 1930s (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html), you want to make sure your commodity gets its share.
People of the revolutionary generation probably imagined that individuals would make their way to Washington to personally make their case for government help. They could not have imagined the hordes of surrogates, many of them receiving princely sums, who would take up residence in the nation's capital and subsist on pressing the cases of others. The idea that a professional advocate such as Jack Abramoff would be corruptly influencing the federal government would have been altogether inconceivable to James Madison.
The good with the bad
The defect in Madison's architecture is not that interest groups would proliferate, but that there would be such an imbalance between those seeking to get or maintain private gain and those advocating for the needs of humbler people. There are, of course, multitudes of lobbyists who advocate the needs of the handicapped, the elderly and endangered species, but they are often out-gunned by trade associations and industry lobbyists.
The defeat in the House of the recent effort to require U.S. automakers to boost the fuel economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079816/) of their cars is eloquent testimony to the clout of business. On the other hand, the high rollers who pushed for the elimination of the inheritance tax (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273376_estatewash09.html) received a stinging rebuke when the repeal that they favored was defeated in the Senate. The big boys don't always get what they want, especially when the focus of the media puts the issue out in the open.
There are in lobbying, as in other enterprises, noble and degraded examples. So you have the Children's Defense Fund pushing for an expansion (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/childhealth/) of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan and a smug and arrogant Abramoff manipulating the Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-tribes-giving_x.htm) on behalf of his well-heeled clients.
Both are lobbying. Even so, it would be as unfair to assume that all lobbyists are like Jack Abramoff as it would be to liken all physicians to Jack Kevorkian.
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
There was a moment in one of the recent Democratic debates in which former senator John Edwards practically accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of being in league with the devil. For some time, he had been attacking her for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Now, using the occasion of a just-passed lobbying reform bill awaiting the signature of a skeptical president, he exceeded even his previous needling of her by suggesting guilt-by-association. Turning to the audience, he charged that lobbyists, such as those who contribute to Clinton, "rig the system against all of you (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html?_r=1&ex=1187841600&en=a9c739db3da26fdf&ei=5070&oref=slogin)."
Edwards' accusations deftly played into a belief common even among well-educated Americans that lobbying, if not actually illegal, is a blot on American politics. The problem with this belief is that it is misinformed.
It might come as a surprise to most people that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602251.html) under the hallowed First Amendment. After the Founding Fathers cast the cloak of protection over freedom of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble, they added a category that could not be infringed upon by the federal government: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)."
Few contemporary efforts to influence government action come by way of a formal petition. But the idea of giving citizens access to government was seen by the writers of the Constitution as something worth safeguarding. And it is, indeed, worth safeguarding because every group in America, at one time or another, has got a gripe and turns to Congress or the federal bureaucracy.
Groups engaged in activities that might seem wholly unconnected with politics, such as the American Automobile Association (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_H.htm) (the folks who get your car started on cold mornings), maintain a presence in Washington to monitor what goes on in Congress. When lawmakers and congressional staffers return from their summer recess, the army of lobbyists storms Washington alongside them.
Religious and military organizations, despite the apolitical nature of our armed forces and the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, stick very close to Congress. So close are the Methodists (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=gpYbdG8nTTbstJWZbHF4nQ%3d%3d&longitude=UTH%2fxgxU3NJ%2fZzEipoIpSw%3d%3d&name=General%20Board%2dGlbl%20Ministries&country=US&address=100%20Maryland%20Ave%20NE%20%23%20315&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d548%2d4002&spurl=0&&q=The%20United%20Methodist%20General%20Board%20of% 20Church%20and%20Society&qc=%28All%29%20Places%20Of%20Worship) and the Reserve Officers Association (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=2jypmtPMGHqb5z8DqMKpow%3d%3d&longitude=CIpOYIVGteZ%2bBzAf6jdV1Q%3d%3d&name=Reserve%20Officers%20Assn%20of%20US&country=US&address=101%20Constitution%20Ave%20NE&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d479%2d2221&spurl=0&&q=Reserve%20Officers%20Association&qc=Associations) that their Washington offices literally overlook the Senate office buildings.
To be sure, the vast bulk of the roughly 35,000 lobbyists in town represent businesses and industries. Nonetheless, as citizens of a commercial republic, should this really surprise us?
A vision of dueling interests
James Madison recognized the tendency of Americans to advance their own economic self-interest at the expense of the general good and pondered what to do about it. He dismissed (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm) the possibility of banning these "factions," arguing that they are a byproduct of our freedom.
His solution was just to allow them to multiply and, as the country expanded, no single interest would dominate. Free to struggle for influence, they would checkmate each other.
What Madison had not reckoned on was the vast expansion in the scope of activities of the federal government over the next 200 years.
As the government expanded, it has affected the lives and livelihoods of more people. They, in turn, want to ensure that government action does not harm them. Even better, they look to an expansive government to benefit them. So if the federal government gets into the business of building dams, they want to supply the cement. If Washington decides to prop up farm prices with subsidies, as it first did in the 1930s (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html), you want to make sure your commodity gets its share.
People of the revolutionary generation probably imagined that individuals would make their way to Washington to personally make their case for government help. They could not have imagined the hordes of surrogates, many of them receiving princely sums, who would take up residence in the nation's capital and subsist on pressing the cases of others. The idea that a professional advocate such as Jack Abramoff would be corruptly influencing the federal government would have been altogether inconceivable to James Madison.
The good with the bad
The defect in Madison's architecture is not that interest groups would proliferate, but that there would be such an imbalance between those seeking to get or maintain private gain and those advocating for the needs of humbler people. There are, of course, multitudes of lobbyists who advocate the needs of the handicapped, the elderly and endangered species, but they are often out-gunned by trade associations and industry lobbyists.
The defeat in the House of the recent effort to require U.S. automakers to boost the fuel economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079816/) of their cars is eloquent testimony to the clout of business. On the other hand, the high rollers who pushed for the elimination of the inheritance tax (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273376_estatewash09.html) received a stinging rebuke when the repeal that they favored was defeated in the Senate. The big boys don't always get what they want, especially when the focus of the media puts the issue out in the open.
There are in lobbying, as in other enterprises, noble and degraded examples. So you have the Children's Defense Fund pushing for an expansion (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/childhealth/) of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan and a smug and arrogant Abramoff manipulating the Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-tribes-giving_x.htm) on behalf of his well-heeled clients.
Both are lobbying. Even so, it would be as unfair to assume that all lobbyists are like Jack Abramoff as it would be to liken all physicians to Jack Kevorkian.
Yesterday Lou Dobb said on his show that he wants the borders and ports to be secured first and then talk about illegal immigration.
It seems that he acknowledges that 11 million people will have to be given some sort of visa or they will remain in the country and no one will be able to do anything about it without spending billions of dollars.
Thats an interesting change in his strategy.
It seems that he acknowledges that 11 million people will have to be given some sort of visa or they will remain in the country and no one will be able to do anything about it without spending billions of dollars.
Thats an interesting change in his strategy.
