China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
wallpaper graffiti wallpaper desktop 3d.
Don't remember exactly, I can look into the wording of the law but I think
post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 is a law and not Memo.
If it's the law then Yates 2000 memo is having unintended consequences after retrogression hit.
post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 is a law and not Memo.
If it's the law then Yates 2000 memo is having unintended consequences after retrogression hit.
I had looked around Alpharetta, cumming, Suwanee, Duluth etc. for new as well as recent houses.
I agree with Hiralal that prices have come down in all these area a lot compared to past.
In alphareeta in 200-300K you can get any new house you want. But not much new construction in that area because of lack of space. You can even get in Johns creek in that price range, which most costliest area in the north. Lot of new construction in the cumming. Not much new in the Suwanee as well as Duluth too.
You can hardly get a decent big and recent (relatively new) house below 200K in any of these area (not town home) unless it is foreclosure. I got in 175Kbecause it was foreclosure.
PM me if you need to talk and you are in market to buy new home. I can share my experiences.
thanks
I agree with Hiralal that prices have come down in all these area a lot compared to past.
In alphareeta in 200-300K you can get any new house you want. But not much new construction in that area because of lack of space. You can even get in Johns creek in that price range, which most costliest area in the north. Lot of new construction in the cumming. Not much new in the Suwanee as well as Duluth too.
You can hardly get a decent big and recent (relatively new) house below 200K in any of these area (not town home) unless it is foreclosure. I got in 175Kbecause it was foreclosure.
PM me if you need to talk and you are in market to buy new home. I can share my experiences.
thanks
2011 graffiti wallpaper desktop 3d. desktop wallpaper graffiti.
Alisa,
Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to have a decent exchange of thoughts with you. I agree with you partly that 'non-state' actors are responsible and not Zardari Govt.. But Who created the non-state actors in the first place? Instead of paying unemployment benefits, who offered them job portability to Kashmir? Their H1B shouldnt have been renewed at all after they came on bench. How can a parent not be responsible for the errant child? The world wants to neutralize the errant child....but for the parent a child is a child after all and that too the one that served its interests once. If this child is abandoned, can future child ( with same objective) be created with the same ease?
Those are the questions that are haunting many Indians on the forums.
But I salute you and other folks for keeping this conversation civil.
Kudos,
GCisaDawg
Nice job and you and Alisa started a good thoughtful conversation.
I agree that war is not the best option but should not be discounted outright.
We are thinking too much of Pakistani nuclear weapons (and to some extent India's nuclear weapons as well). When Pakistan and India last tested these (1998), many experts thought these were fizzles. I could dig up one article that hints that 1998 tests are a possible fizzles.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6037992.stm
2. N. Korea tested nukes in 2006 and are definitely fizzles and these are built using the same techniques used by pakistan (AQ Khan actively involved).
3. The other important aspect of nukes is the delivery. Pakistan's capability is suspect here as well. It is not sufficient just to have warheads and missiles (made in China), they should be tied together with proper trigger mechanism and it is uncertain if China delivered this technology to Pakistan or not.
With points 1, 2 and 3, it is reasonable to assume Pakistan can not take out India even with first strike and with nuclear weapons. I definitely think India's nukes are more potent. Assuming Indian nukes are just as bad as Pakistani nukes, finally it boils down to conventional war, and Pakistan can never beat India in a long drawn out war. The simple reason is that, India has a robust manufacturing base and much more robust economy and can continue to produce weapons and support war, where as Pakistan has to stop the moment it runs out of the weapons it bought fron US and China. Pakistan can not expect military supplies from any country once the war starts.
The only way Pakistan can win over India is to destroy India completely with nuclear first strike and it would have done that already if it had the capability.
If there is a war between India and Pakistan, India wins that war with or without nukes, period. So nukes should not be a deterrent for India going to war with Pakistan.
The other point every one is making is that wars can damage India economically. Not necessarily. Look at history and you will see that many countries prospered after wars (eg. US, UK, Germany, Japan etc. post WW-II).
There is one more good reason for India-Pakistan war. The major reason for failed democracy in Pakistan is its military. A war between India and Pakistan has one outcome, India's victory and destruction/weakening of Pakistan army. With weakened military, Pakistan has a chance to develop as a democratic nation, and that is good for the entire region. Proof? look at what happened after Indo-Pak war of 1971 and Indira Gandhi created Bangladesh. There was resurgence of democracy, with Bhutto becoming prime minister until that crook Zia-ul-Huq murdered him.
But I doubt any of this will happen now. I wish Indira Gandhi is Prime minister and leading India now.
Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to have a decent exchange of thoughts with you. I agree with you partly that 'non-state' actors are responsible and not Zardari Govt.. But Who created the non-state actors in the first place? Instead of paying unemployment benefits, who offered them job portability to Kashmir? Their H1B shouldnt have been renewed at all after they came on bench. How can a parent not be responsible for the errant child? The world wants to neutralize the errant child....but for the parent a child is a child after all and that too the one that served its interests once. If this child is abandoned, can future child ( with same objective) be created with the same ease?
Those are the questions that are haunting many Indians on the forums.
But I salute you and other folks for keeping this conversation civil.
Kudos,
GCisaDawg
Nice job and you and Alisa started a good thoughtful conversation.
I agree that war is not the best option but should not be discounted outright.
We are thinking too much of Pakistani nuclear weapons (and to some extent India's nuclear weapons as well). When Pakistan and India last tested these (1998), many experts thought these were fizzles. I could dig up one article that hints that 1998 tests are a possible fizzles.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6037992.stm
2. N. Korea tested nukes in 2006 and are definitely fizzles and these are built using the same techniques used by pakistan (AQ Khan actively involved).
3. The other important aspect of nukes is the delivery. Pakistan's capability is suspect here as well. It is not sufficient just to have warheads and missiles (made in China), they should be tied together with proper trigger mechanism and it is uncertain if China delivered this technology to Pakistan or not.
With points 1, 2 and 3, it is reasonable to assume Pakistan can not take out India even with first strike and with nuclear weapons. I definitely think India's nukes are more potent. Assuming Indian nukes are just as bad as Pakistani nukes, finally it boils down to conventional war, and Pakistan can never beat India in a long drawn out war. The simple reason is that, India has a robust manufacturing base and much more robust economy and can continue to produce weapons and support war, where as Pakistan has to stop the moment it runs out of the weapons it bought fron US and China. Pakistan can not expect military supplies from any country once the war starts.
The only way Pakistan can win over India is to destroy India completely with nuclear first strike and it would have done that already if it had the capability.
If there is a war between India and Pakistan, India wins that war with or without nukes, period. So nukes should not be a deterrent for India going to war with Pakistan.
The other point every one is making is that wars can damage India economically. Not necessarily. Look at history and you will see that many countries prospered after wars (eg. US, UK, Germany, Japan etc. post WW-II).
There is one more good reason for India-Pakistan war. The major reason for failed democracy in Pakistan is its military. A war between India and Pakistan has one outcome, India's victory and destruction/weakening of Pakistan army. With weakened military, Pakistan has a chance to develop as a democratic nation, and that is good for the entire region. Proof? look at what happened after Indo-Pak war of 1971 and Indira Gandhi created Bangladesh. There was resurgence of democracy, with Bhutto becoming prime minister until that crook Zia-ul-Huq murdered him.
But I doubt any of this will happen now. I wish Indira Gandhi is Prime minister and leading India now.
I think you are right - as soon as they see I140 revocation they are doing the easiest thing, that is to reject underlying I485. They can easily check the 180 days period; alternately they can actually issue NoticeOfIntenttoDeny (NOID) and give a chance to the candidate why I485 should not be rejected - this is also equally easy for them to do (just send a letter and give a 45 day or something similar time). I think they are simply rejecting so it reduces the total pending I485 cases. It might be possible for us to open MTR and resolve this but if working on EAD we will be in soup and also MTR's typically take longer to get resolved.
I guess this discussion is going on in a different direction.. "AC21 is the focus here" while we are at it, I want to ask if someone has seen a denial, just because someone used AC21 and the I-140 was not revoked.
I guess this discussion is going on in a different direction.. "AC21 is the focus here" while we are at it, I want to ask if someone has seen a denial, just because someone used AC21 and the I-140 was not revoked.
That's correct spelling mistakes, etc., can be corrected if you go back to the port of entry who generated the I-94 card.
I 102 is more for replacement of an I-94 card.
However; POE entering you on a wrong companies h-1b isn't so easily correctible after the fact.
In situations such as this; it is better to go back out and re-enter with proper company h-1b.
In May and June before people were getting ready to file the 485's a lot of these issues were found in reviewing their files/history. Many people had their visas expired and they didn't want to go for visa stamping. What many people did was go to Canada and use auto revalidation and then re-enter USA on the proper companies h-1b and/or get a new I-94 card and also reset the 245k benefit since it is measured from the date of last entry to filing the 485.
Hello United Nations..
After looking into above message...I have some doubts, could you please clarify them.
1. In order to file 485, the person must have a valid visa in his passport?
In my case I have a valid I 94 but my visa got expired 2 months back, Am I eligible to file 485?
2. What is auto revalidation?
I appreciate for your answers.
Thanks
RR
I 102 is more for replacement of an I-94 card.
However; POE entering you on a wrong companies h-1b isn't so easily correctible after the fact.
In situations such as this; it is better to go back out and re-enter with proper company h-1b.
In May and June before people were getting ready to file the 485's a lot of these issues were found in reviewing their files/history. Many people had their visas expired and they didn't want to go for visa stamping. What many people did was go to Canada and use auto revalidation and then re-enter USA on the proper companies h-1b and/or get a new I-94 card and also reset the 245k benefit since it is measured from the date of last entry to filing the 485.
Hello United Nations..
After looking into above message...I have some doubts, could you please clarify them.
1. In order to file 485, the person must have a valid visa in his passport?
In my case I have a valid I 94 but my visa got expired 2 months back, Am I eligible to file 485?
2. What is auto revalidation?
I appreciate for your answers.
Thanks
RR
>> US does not produce any consumer goods, its all China..if you don't produce you don't sell and if you don't sell you don't make an income, and if you don't make an income you don't pay taxes...plain and simple. So, what do we do, Borrow and spend.. but remember, the interest obligations will grow to suck the dollars away from goods and services that it purchases. (Folks are in China now )
I believe this is oversimplified. You are completely ignoring the value of knowledge properties and innovation.
Lets take the example of Boeing. 20 years down the line - it may decide that manufacturing may make more sense in China and relocate its factory. However, my belief is that it will be very difficult for Boeing to relocate all of its knowledge workers. The low levels ones are easy to relocate. But the key innovators will continue coming from the US education system. The next generation of ceramic or alloy materials to build components will be invented in US 90% of the time (It may be a bold claim - I will substantiate this in more detail later).
If the key innovators/management are in/from US - a lot of the profit of this corporation would stay in the US - either in the form of taxes or return paid to shareholders. In fact, I would argue that the intellectual properties (that US would "own") will be more valuable than the value addition from the grunt work in China/India. So your comment suggesting that US is no longer adding any real value to the world economy is probably misplaced.
Now to my big assumption/comment about the unassailable lead in innovation.
US is unique in that it allowed the best people from all over the world immigrate and let all ideas mingle to create great ones. No other country allowed this. No other country is even in the horizon to be doing that in the next 100 years. There are so many tech workers in Bangalore and so many manufacturers in China - how many latest innovations did you see coming from there? Unless Bangalore/Shanghai becomes the next hub for people all over the world to come in and synthesize ideas - they will never replace the US. I dont see that happening any time soon.
And what happens if the Lou Dobbs types are successful and US goes down the drain? Well - then all of us are well and truely screwed and the economy, its trends etc become meaningless. The world has many major issues to face in the next 100 years - global worming, over population, depleting natural resources etc. If there is no center of innovation any more (like the current US) - then all the calculations we do about economy and all will probably be irrelevant. When you are fighting for survival then economy does not matter - your next bowl of rice does.
I believe this is oversimplified. You are completely ignoring the value of knowledge properties and innovation.
Lets take the example of Boeing. 20 years down the line - it may decide that manufacturing may make more sense in China and relocate its factory. However, my belief is that it will be very difficult for Boeing to relocate all of its knowledge workers. The low levels ones are easy to relocate. But the key innovators will continue coming from the US education system. The next generation of ceramic or alloy materials to build components will be invented in US 90% of the time (It may be a bold claim - I will substantiate this in more detail later).
If the key innovators/management are in/from US - a lot of the profit of this corporation would stay in the US - either in the form of taxes or return paid to shareholders. In fact, I would argue that the intellectual properties (that US would "own") will be more valuable than the value addition from the grunt work in China/India. So your comment suggesting that US is no longer adding any real value to the world economy is probably misplaced.
Now to my big assumption/comment about the unassailable lead in innovation.
US is unique in that it allowed the best people from all over the world immigrate and let all ideas mingle to create great ones. No other country allowed this. No other country is even in the horizon to be doing that in the next 100 years. There are so many tech workers in Bangalore and so many manufacturers in China - how many latest innovations did you see coming from there? Unless Bangalore/Shanghai becomes the next hub for people all over the world to come in and synthesize ideas - they will never replace the US. I dont see that happening any time soon.
And what happens if the Lou Dobbs types are successful and US goes down the drain? Well - then all of us are well and truely screwed and the economy, its trends etc become meaningless. The world has many major issues to face in the next 100 years - global worming, over population, depleting natural resources etc. If there is no center of innovation any more (like the current US) - then all the calculations we do about economy and all will probably be irrelevant. When you are fighting for survival then economy does not matter - your next bowl of rice does.
2010 graffiti wallpaper desktop 3d.
Despite of several warnings by Israel, Hamas (that is elected by Palestine people) was launching rockets on the civilian population of Isreal. (and hardly any in Islamic world condemned it)
What were they thinking? They were just provoking Israel, and when it retaliated, suddenly all those Palestine and Hamas sympathizers are crying foul asking for mediation and intervention. I would say Israel has a right to wipe out any element that was involved in attacking their civilian population.
If some cowards are hiding behind their own women and children and launching attacks, rockets on Israelis then shouldn't they be asked to stop using innocent civilians for cover and fight like soldiers?
What were they thinking? They were just provoking Israel, and when it retaliated, suddenly all those Palestine and Hamas sympathizers are crying foul asking for mediation and intervention. I would say Israel has a right to wipe out any element that was involved in attacking their civilian population.
If some cowards are hiding behind their own women and children and launching attacks, rockets on Israelis then shouldn't they be asked to stop using innocent civilians for cover and fight like soldiers?
It looks like this thread has really started to make peope think of the "status issues".
A lot of people have sent me PM's to assist them. However; I can't take this off-line; therefore, please resist from sending me PM's.
Reason I participated in this discussion was to highlight some of the things that people should think of and determine best courses of actions.
attornies and the like are very busy doing their current work. There is a high chance that they may not do the proper due diligence or ask you the proper questions before they file.
You all need to have a very thorough discussion with your attornies and take second opinions where necessary. I can tell you that depending on your attornies case load; how many phone calls they are taking; they may provide you advice that would suit their own needs (ie., get you off the phone the quickest and let them carry on with their normal duties).
Unless the law changes; everyone will be stuck in retrogression for a long time. If UScis should pre-adudicate and deny 485's then you will lose the opportunity to re-file for quite some time.
This is an important topic as this is what uscis mainly looks at in the 485 stage. I suggest people discuss it with their attornies and make sure you have every situation covered before you file the 485.
A lot of people have sent me PM's to assist them. However; I can't take this off-line; therefore, please resist from sending me PM's.
Reason I participated in this discussion was to highlight some of the things that people should think of and determine best courses of actions.
attornies and the like are very busy doing their current work. There is a high chance that they may not do the proper due diligence or ask you the proper questions before they file.
You all need to have a very thorough discussion with your attornies and take second opinions where necessary. I can tell you that depending on your attornies case load; how many phone calls they are taking; they may provide you advice that would suit their own needs (ie., get you off the phone the quickest and let them carry on with their normal duties).
Unless the law changes; everyone will be stuck in retrogression for a long time. If UScis should pre-adudicate and deny 485's then you will lose the opportunity to re-file for quite some time.
This is an important topic as this is what uscis mainly looks at in the 485 stage. I suggest people discuss it with their attornies and make sure you have every situation covered before you file the 485.
hair GRAFFITI AGENCY: 3D-SIGN
What a tiresome thread!!!
Several years ago, people actually made an effort to make IV an organization representing all skilled workers, from all parts of the world. Now, immigration matters are totally irrelevant on the forums. Heck, forget about being an exclusively India focused forum, as this thread demonstrates, it is a venue to vent on matters even more narrowly focused - My religion, my sect, my opinion, my petty prejudices. If this is not irrelevant enough, we have enough threads on red dot-green dots to justify a whole separate category of forums :rolleyes:
Anyway, it does a pretty good job of turning off people. I guarantee you this thread alone has contributed significantly in influencing many planning on attending the March rally to change their mind. It sure did mine.
I think you and many others like you didn't want to go in the first place. You are just inventing an excuse.
There are other threads on this forum, this is not a good excuse. If you don't like this thread, don't bother reading it. Its really simple.
Several years ago, people actually made an effort to make IV an organization representing all skilled workers, from all parts of the world. Now, immigration matters are totally irrelevant on the forums. Heck, forget about being an exclusively India focused forum, as this thread demonstrates, it is a venue to vent on matters even more narrowly focused - My religion, my sect, my opinion, my petty prejudices. If this is not irrelevant enough, we have enough threads on red dot-green dots to justify a whole separate category of forums :rolleyes:
Anyway, it does a pretty good job of turning off people. I guarantee you this thread alone has contributed significantly in influencing many planning on attending the March rally to change their mind. It sure did mine.
I think you and many others like you didn't want to go in the first place. You are just inventing an excuse.
There are other threads on this forum, this is not a good excuse. If you don't like this thread, don't bother reading it. Its really simple.
though its very tempting to support obama with all his elequent talk, I think action speaks louder than words. he has absolutely no history of doing anything in the senate, and has not worked in a bi-partisan way with the republicans to pass any thing. do you think all of a sudden as prez he's going to get things done. further his stance on matters changes as the wind blows. meanwhile mccain has a history of making things happen, even sometimes going against his party. Dem will be more interested in helping the illegals become permanent, and not the legals 'coz their sights are on the vote banks. reps in general are more pro-business, and will favor the legal as opposed to illegals. of course there are some who are against.
someone pointed out the days were better in the 90's...i do agree that was a period of boom in the us economy with the rise of the dot com companies. but towards the end of the 90's, the dot com going bust, the us economy was heading in recession. and adding to that the rise of other economic powers like china, india, russia, the competition grew intense, and started to hurt the US economy much. However to the credit of the repub prez the SU economy came out from the inital recession, and the overall unemployment % was only ~5.4%, the lower in several decades incl the 90's. I think it was only through the right economic and pro-business policies of this admin that helped in this. of course the wars and the housing bubble has brought us to this new economic situations. It would require the next admin to frame policies that would keep US out of next recession.
but with dems policies of higher taxes on business (of course higher taxes on you and me), and more govt spending using mine and your tax dollars (of course our ss which we might never see) to hand it out to the lazy, and good for nothing people, you'll def see the US economy going into deeper recession. on top of that the universal health care would see us going the way of CA and europe with health care rationing, and long lines.
I could go on adding the benefits e.g. favorable deals with india the repubs would bring, but I thinks this is good for now.
so I would suggest stop going with the age old mentality and blindly believing that the dems are best. Start to think rationally.
someone pointed out the days were better in the 90's...i do agree that was a period of boom in the us economy with the rise of the dot com companies. but towards the end of the 90's, the dot com going bust, the us economy was heading in recession. and adding to that the rise of other economic powers like china, india, russia, the competition grew intense, and started to hurt the US economy much. However to the credit of the repub prez the SU economy came out from the inital recession, and the overall unemployment % was only ~5.4%, the lower in several decades incl the 90's. I think it was only through the right economic and pro-business policies of this admin that helped in this. of course the wars and the housing bubble has brought us to this new economic situations. It would require the next admin to frame policies that would keep US out of next recession.
but with dems policies of higher taxes on business (of course higher taxes on you and me), and more govt spending using mine and your tax dollars (of course our ss which we might never see) to hand it out to the lazy, and good for nothing people, you'll def see the US economy going into deeper recession. on top of that the universal health care would see us going the way of CA and europe with health care rationing, and long lines.
I could go on adding the benefits e.g. favorable deals with india the repubs would bring, but I thinks this is good for now.
so I would suggest stop going with the age old mentality and blindly believing that the dems are best. Start to think rationally.
hot graffiti wallpaper desktop 3d.
I think you missed my point. Which was that the 'solution' that Mr rinku1112 was suggesting, destabilizing Pakistan by funding dissident groups, is something that Pakistan already suspects India is doing. And there might be some truth to it. So, then, Pakistan would want to fund groups that would try to destabilize India.
Thats the vicious cycle.
It might be true, it might not be. Its only reactionary if its at all true and a very subdued reaction that is. If India was Israel in its attitude and what it is in its size, you wouldn't have seen the vicious circle that you think you see. It would have been all over by now - without all the intellectual sparring and head-banging that go on, on these immigration forums. Pakistani terrorism would have been a moot point - a non-issue.
Thats the vicious cycle.
It might be true, it might not be. Its only reactionary if its at all true and a very subdued reaction that is. If India was Israel in its attitude and what it is in its size, you wouldn't have seen the vicious circle that you think you see. It would have been all over by now - without all the intellectual sparring and head-banging that go on, on these immigration forums. Pakistani terrorism would have been a moot point - a non-issue.
house girlfriend graffiti wallpaper
Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21cong.html) By CARL HULSE and ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
�What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
�I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
�A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
�Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
�The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
�I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�
WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
�What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
�I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
�A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
�Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
�The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
�I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�
tattoo Graffiti Wallpaper.art
you did not get my post...last thing we want is silly argument regarding EB2 and EB3................
me neither. Pl read this post of mine:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
Some people dont seem to get the intent.
Irrational passion calls for dispassionate rationality.
me neither. Pl read this post of mine:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
Some people dont seem to get the intent.
Irrational passion calls for dispassionate rationality.
pictures graffiti wallpaper desktop 3d. graffiti wallpaper desktop
Its a known tendency of hindu groups of radicalizing muslims, so much so that Jinnah took into consideration and formed pakistan.
Still the hindus will target an abominal act of 11 people and make a community of muslims, a country victim of their acts.
Yet, even if a hindu preaches infanticide of girls, he is not terrorist, a hindu scripture preaching burning alive of widows is not terrorist doctrine, a mythical god preaching murder of low caste for chanting holy rhymes is not a terrorist! Hail Ram!
India could fight british militantly under Subhash Chandra, and under Gandhi, and that is fight for freedom, yet Palestinians fighting for free country is terrorism! Will the Aryans return the land to Dravidians now?
Pakistan attacking India, by sending in infiltrators is terrorism. Its not freedom fighting because they already obtained their freedom, without even fighting for it.
If there are border disputes, let uniformed soldiers fight wars accordingly to the rules of war. Terrorism is cowardly and despicable because it targets innocent people from another country. War is between armed forces. Targeting innocent people is terrorism.
Burning widows alive is a practice which Hindus themselves worked hard to put an end to.
Infanticide happens among muslims too, look at the way they treat their own women and produce dozens of children. The islamic laws make women virtual slaves of men.
We should work for putting an end to this. These are bad practices carried out in the name of religion against members of the same religion. It is not cross-border terrorism.
Still the hindus will target an abominal act of 11 people and make a community of muslims, a country victim of their acts.
Yet, even if a hindu preaches infanticide of girls, he is not terrorist, a hindu scripture preaching burning alive of widows is not terrorist doctrine, a mythical god preaching murder of low caste for chanting holy rhymes is not a terrorist! Hail Ram!
India could fight british militantly under Subhash Chandra, and under Gandhi, and that is fight for freedom, yet Palestinians fighting for free country is terrorism! Will the Aryans return the land to Dravidians now?
Pakistan attacking India, by sending in infiltrators is terrorism. Its not freedom fighting because they already obtained their freedom, without even fighting for it.
If there are border disputes, let uniformed soldiers fight wars accordingly to the rules of war. Terrorism is cowardly and despicable because it targets innocent people from another country. War is between armed forces. Targeting innocent people is terrorism.
Burning widows alive is a practice which Hindus themselves worked hard to put an end to.
Infanticide happens among muslims too, look at the way they treat their own women and produce dozens of children. The islamic laws make women virtual slaves of men.
We should work for putting an end to this. These are bad practices carried out in the name of religion against members of the same religion. It is not cross-border terrorism.
dresses graffiti wallpaper desktop 3d. wallpaper desktop 3d 2011,
My intent is to get someone to write a good letter that makes a compelling case for EB3 reform. No ranting, whining, pleading, no envy ......... just an eager, passionate appeal for broad reform.
We are in an English Speaking nation - to succeed we must write and speak well in English - No EXCUSES. Good writing is an acquired skill.
The letter will not be very effective it is misdirected - write to congress not DOS/DOL/DHS.
EB3 members - please draft a passionate letter(s) express the pain (not frustration)....
I agree! Guys, can some one who is good in drafting letter like this one come forward and volunteer?
The person, can either take inputs and then draft a letter or come up his/her own and then look for suggestions.
Thoughts?
We are in an English Speaking nation - to succeed we must write and speak well in English - No EXCUSES. Good writing is an acquired skill.
The letter will not be very effective it is misdirected - write to congress not DOS/DOL/DHS.
EB3 members - please draft a passionate letter(s) express the pain (not frustration)....
I agree! Guys, can some one who is good in drafting letter like this one come forward and volunteer?
The person, can either take inputs and then draft a letter or come up his/her own and then look for suggestions.
Thoughts?
makeup tattoo graffiti wallpaper
SunnySurya,
Weren't you the one who said India should gift kashmir to pakistan to solve all terrorrist activities and war ?
How come you became a patriot and started caring about india all of a sudden ?
Do you have any consistent opinion ?
I think SunnySurya changed his mind. People and their opinions change. Let's ignore what he said in earlier posts.
Gifting Kashmir will not solve anything. Now they want Kashmir, tomorrow they will want South India. Before long, we may all be converted to islam because Pakistan is an islamic republic not a secular democracy and the country is ruled by military dictators and hardliners.
Yes, in India, there have been attacks by Hindus on innocent muslims but imagine the plight of Hindus, if it had been a muslim majority and an islamic republic of india!
There are many good thinkers and hard-working folks in Pakistan but you can never trust the hardliners there and these hardliners seem to be grabbing power in the country all the time.
Did you know that the original demand for Pakistan 1947 was a long stretch of corridor stretching the north and the south and the east and the west, connecting different muslim dominated pockets together?
Which meant India was to be divided into 4 quadrants and to get from one quadrant to another, an Indian had to cross Pakistan...it was simply ridiculous!!
Weren't you the one who said India should gift kashmir to pakistan to solve all terrorrist activities and war ?
How come you became a patriot and started caring about india all of a sudden ?
Do you have any consistent opinion ?
I think SunnySurya changed his mind. People and their opinions change. Let's ignore what he said in earlier posts.
Gifting Kashmir will not solve anything. Now they want Kashmir, tomorrow they will want South India. Before long, we may all be converted to islam because Pakistan is an islamic republic not a secular democracy and the country is ruled by military dictators and hardliners.
Yes, in India, there have been attacks by Hindus on innocent muslims but imagine the plight of Hindus, if it had been a muslim majority and an islamic republic of india!
There are many good thinkers and hard-working folks in Pakistan but you can never trust the hardliners there and these hardliners seem to be grabbing power in the country all the time.
Did you know that the original demand for Pakistan 1947 was a long stretch of corridor stretching the north and the south and the east and the west, connecting different muslim dominated pockets together?
Which meant India was to be divided into 4 quadrants and to get from one quadrant to another, an Indian had to cross Pakistan...it was simply ridiculous!!
girlfriend 2010 graffiti wallpaper
Actually the best strategy will be to build up troops in Kandahar, completely in secrecy. Afghan govt can help India if India plays some deft diplomatic moves. Then hit Quetta by launching an attack from Kandahar. Pakistanis won't even know what hit them. They will be waiting for attack to come from their eastern border.
Like this thread. I'm no defence strategist either but its good to read this.
Like this thread. I'm no defence strategist either but its good to read this.
hairstyles hairstyles graffiti wallpaper desktop 3d. desktop wallpaper graffiti. allah
The EB3 situation is really bad...I have the calling part too...and its stressful to see EB3I not having any good hopes though.
I am in signing this letter.
its worth a try.Atleast they will come know there is Eb3 stuck for many years beacause of the backlog.the old applications have not been considered at all.
I request even EB2 to support this cause and help.
I am in signing this letter.
its worth a try.Atleast they will come know there is Eb3 stuck for many years beacause of the backlog.the old applications have not been considered at all.
I request even EB2 to support this cause and help.
My case is intent-to-hire for 485, so my attorney just took 3 paystubs and 1 w2 for filing. Is that ok?
I am requesting an amendment to the spelling of "mahaul".
I think it would sound better if we spelled it as "mahole" :D
:DGuys ,
The "mahaul"(environment) seems so Tense around the IV forums that I thought of making a thread to share some light humor / Jokes etc
Here are some funny quotes to start with
I don't think President fully understands this immigration thing.
Like today, when they asked him about amnesty, he said it's horrible
when anyone loses their memory." --Jay Leno
"As you know, today was Don't Take Your Immigrant To Work Day
here in Los Angeles. No, all across the nation they had a Day Without
Immigrants, is what they call it. Or, as Native Americans call it, the
good ol' days." --Jay Leno
I think it would sound better if we spelled it as "mahole" :D
:DGuys ,
The "mahaul"(environment) seems so Tense around the IV forums that I thought of making a thread to share some light humor / Jokes etc
Here are some funny quotes to start with
I don't think President fully understands this immigration thing.
Like today, when they asked him about amnesty, he said it's horrible
when anyone loses their memory." --Jay Leno
"As you know, today was Don't Take Your Immigrant To Work Day
here in Los Angeles. No, all across the nation they had a Day Without
Immigrants, is what they call it. Or, as Native Americans call it, the
good ol' days." --Jay Leno
