gc28262
09-26 09:41 AM
For me Obama and Mccain are equally good candidates. I would prefer Hillary Clinton over both of them.
McCain is a great guy, but he is with the wrong party. A party that aligns itself with anti-immigrants.
Now that we don't have much hopes for HR-5882, we should start targeting the CIR right now. Maybe we can talk to the Hispanic and other groups which will have an influence over CIR and have our provisions taken care of.
It will definitely be easier to tie-up with Hispanic caucus and other groups than anti-immigrants.
McCain is a great guy, but he is with the wrong party. A party that aligns itself with anti-immigrants.
Now that we don't have much hopes for HR-5882, we should start targeting the CIR right now. Maybe we can talk to the Hispanic and other groups which will have an influence over CIR and have our provisions taken care of.
It will definitely be easier to tie-up with Hispanic caucus and other groups than anti-immigrants.
wallpaper Flag Poles 12 feet and 18 feet
gjoe
07-14 07:00 PM
If you can show that EB3 I from 2004 was approved in 2005 or 2006 you can challenge USCIS if you have a older PD, no matter if you filed your I485 at that time or not.
You have a strong case if you can prove that USCIS went about processing application and issuing GC in a disorderly fashion and due to that your application with a earlier priority date has not been processed.
My 2paisa here, Good Luck
You have a strong case if you can prove that USCIS went about processing application and issuing GC in a disorderly fashion and due to that your application with a earlier priority date has not been processed.
My 2paisa here, Good Luck
sc3
07-14 12:57 PM
USCIS has not changed any law they have re-interpreted an existing law which was unclear and some folks have said that CIS interprets laws based on inputs from congress to understand the intent behind the law. If you complain to CIS that you have changed law they will send you a polite reply that we do not make any laws we just implement it.
* When was it unclear?
* Why did it take so long for USCIS to see that the law was unclear?
* What caused USCIS to realize that the law was unclear?
* What caused them to change their interpretation?
* How did USCIS use up all of EB2-I numbers in the very first quarter? (Very illegal thing to do)
Come on, dont be so picky. You know what I mean when I said USCIS changed the law. Dont argue on syntax.
* When was it unclear?
* Why did it take so long for USCIS to see that the law was unclear?
* What caused USCIS to realize that the law was unclear?
* What caused them to change their interpretation?
* How did USCIS use up all of EB2-I numbers in the very first quarter? (Very illegal thing to do)
Come on, dont be so picky. You know what I mean when I said USCIS changed the law. Dont argue on syntax.
2011 Flag Pole (Древко)
humdesi
07-08 07:47 PM
Assuming your husband is here from 2000, they are asking for 7 years, i.e. 12 * 7 = 84 months of paystubs? This is ridiculous. How many people keep paystubs from 7 years ago? Infact in those days paystubs used to have their social security numbers on them, they should be shredded, atleast that's the common advice.
Hi,
Thank you for all your support.They asked for my husband`s paystubs ,all employment history all W2`s when he filed for AOS as primary.Later we withdrew his petition and only kept petition filed through me as the primary.That officer is extremely detailed oriented ,he/she asked and questioned every minute detail pertaining to our case.
New update on EAD is that local offices are no longer authorized to issue interim EAD`S.We went to local office in greer, south carolina(we live in charlotte,nc) and the answer we got was that they can only email uscis why there is a delay.and if we wanted to find an answer we should come back in 2 weeks and that they won`t disclose any thing by phone because of privacy act.
Hi,
Thank you for all your support.They asked for my husband`s paystubs ,all employment history all W2`s when he filed for AOS as primary.Later we withdrew his petition and only kept petition filed through me as the primary.That officer is extremely detailed oriented ,he/she asked and questioned every minute detail pertaining to our case.
New update on EAD is that local offices are no longer authorized to issue interim EAD`S.We went to local office in greer, south carolina(we live in charlotte,nc) and the answer we got was that they can only email uscis why there is a delay.and if we wanted to find an answer we should come back in 2 weeks and that they won`t disclose any thing by phone because of privacy act.
more...
mallu
01-28 02:38 AM
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.
immique
07-14 10:10 PM
why did you not sue your employer saying that he improperly filed the petition in EB3. you should have done it long time back and you can still do it. If you do not want to do it, you should have switched employers and refiled in EB2 with a different employer. personally I do not prefer to work for any such employer who does not understand the true value of your skills. such isolated experiences are not a justification for circumventing EB preference laws.
Why do you write 'I know this mess is depressing for EB3 folks' ?
Is IV not with Eb3 folks? Or are they not important.
Let me clear somethings.
Earning in higher 70Ks in the year 2003 and with over 5+ years of progressive experience, they still went ahead a filed my app under EB3. Was that a mistake? Not mine. My employer knew that Eb3 would be slower.
What happened? cases like mine were eye openers and learning experiences for comrades who were going to file and they filed under EB2, I asked friends and relatives and classmates of mine to file under Eb2.
Am i happy for them? No, I hate them. Of course, I am happy for them. Very very much.
So, why would you not fight for us?
If people like me and filers before me had not filed under EB3, and not shared our experiences, how would we have progressed?
Suddenly, 'You Eb3 folks are depressed' from 'We folks are depressed'. lol for chauvinism.
Why do you write 'I know this mess is depressing for EB3 folks' ?
Is IV not with Eb3 folks? Or are they not important.
Let me clear somethings.
Earning in higher 70Ks in the year 2003 and with over 5+ years of progressive experience, they still went ahead a filed my app under EB3. Was that a mistake? Not mine. My employer knew that Eb3 would be slower.
What happened? cases like mine were eye openers and learning experiences for comrades who were going to file and they filed under EB2, I asked friends and relatives and classmates of mine to file under Eb2.
Am i happy for them? No, I hate them. Of course, I am happy for them. Very very much.
So, why would you not fight for us?
If people like me and filers before me had not filed under EB3, and not shared our experiences, how would we have progressed?
Suddenly, 'You Eb3 folks are depressed' from 'We folks are depressed'. lol for chauvinism.
more...
SunnySurya
08-05 03:10 PM
It is not the Law. It is just a guidance provide in one 2000 Memo by a USCIS director.
Nothing great ever happens by trying to undermine each other. Laws are laws, some fair and some unfair, just deal with it and focus on remedying the whole broken system.
Nothing great ever happens by trying to undermine each other. Laws are laws, some fair and some unfair, just deal with it and focus on remedying the whole broken system.
2010 Flag Poles - Flagpoles for
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
more...
mirage
08-06 09:28 AM
Rolling floods,
What is your PD ? EB2-India is Jun2006. It is just 2 years back. So I am guessing your PD is even less than 2 years and you are getting so restless that your are seeking to get more rulings done in place where 2000 thousand unnecessary laws & rulings exist for a 'could be an easy' process. I think instead of talking to lawyers you need to see a doctor...
What is your PD ? EB2-India is Jun2006. It is just 2 years back. So I am guessing your PD is even less than 2 years and you are getting so restless that your are seeking to get more rulings done in place where 2000 thousand unnecessary laws & rulings exist for a 'could be an easy' process. I think instead of talking to lawyers you need to see a doctor...
hair Car Flag Pole. Item No.
Macaca
12-28 08:03 AM
House Members Spent $20.3M on Mailings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122700903.html?hpid=sec-politics) By DENNIS CONRAD | Associated Press, Dec 28, 2007
WASHINGTON -- U.S. House members spent $20.3 million in tax money last year to send constituents what's often the government equivalent of junk mail _ meeting announcements, tips on car care and job interviews, surveys on public policy and just plain bragging.
They sent nearly 116 million pieces of mail in all, many of them glossy productions filled with flattering photos and lists of the latest roads and bridges the lawmaker has brought home to the district, an Associated Press review of public records shows.
Some offered advice on topics one would more commonly expect to see in a consumer-advice column.
"Keep your car properly maintained" to improve mileage, suggested Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., in a newsletter on how to deal with rising energy prices.
Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., offered tips on home improvements.
And Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., who lost her primary race last year, sent out a taxpayer-funded newsletter a few months before the election that included this simple observation:
"Convicted felons can vote," she said, if "your" prison sentence has been served, parole or probation completed and fines paid. While campaigning, McKinney, who is black, noted that blacks make up a disproportionately large share of the prison population, which she said dilutes their voting strength.
A dozen House members spent more than $133,000 each to send 9.8 million pieces of mass mailings. Total cost? $1.8 million.
Sometimes the lawmakers' taxpayer funded mailings topped what they paid for direct mail through their campaign funds.
Of the 64 House members with at least $100,000 in taxpayer-funded mailing expenses _ and overwhelmingly for mass mailings _ 42 were Republicans and 22 were Democrats, the AP review found.
In sharp contrast, 59 lawmakers in the 435-member House _ 35 Republicans and 24 Democrats _ spent nothing on mass mailings. They tended to be the more experienced House members, often with 14 or more years of service.
Mass mailings cannot be blatantly political, but they still can have political benefits, said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers' Union, which has condemned mass mailings.
"A taxpayer-financed mailing doesn't have to say 're-elect me' to have an impact on voters," Sepp said. "A glossy newsletter splashed with the incumbent's achievements in Congress can build useful credentials a lawmaker can take with him to the ballot box. The franking privilege is one of the main cogs in Congress' PR machine."
Franking, practiced since the early days of the republic, lets members of Congress send mail with just a signature where the postage would normally be affixed. Although the mailings are regulated by a congressional commission to guard against overt political appeals and cannot go out within 90 days of an election, they still sometimes take a dig at the opposition.
In a June 2006 newsletter, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., noted that under the Republican majority, Congress had passed tax cuts that "benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working families."
Stark has been a regular among the biggest users of the congressional franking privilege. For 2006, his mass mailings alone cost $172,357, an amount large enough to rank him among the top congressional mailers. House documents reported his overall mailing costs to be about $37,000 less. The AP received no explanation for the apparent discrepancy from spokesmen for Stark, the House Administration Committee and House administration staff.
Some lawmakers defend the newsletters as a vital way of communicating with constituents.
"One of the biggest complaints my constituents had (with) my predecessor was that they never knew what was going on in Washington," said Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla. "They never had the opportunity to do surveys, etc. I promised I would communicate with them regularly."
Brown-Waite is one of the biggest users of bulk mail, with 657,951 pieces at a cost of $129,428 last year. That surpassed the approximately $110,000 her campaign spent on direct mailings and related costs.
One taxpayer-funded mailing featured a picture of her and the headline: "Medicare Prescription Drug Update: The Time to Act is Now." Another, entitled "Constituent Service Guide for the 5th District," included a survey and information about how to obtain U.S. flags, assistance from federal agencies and an appointment to a military academy.
The House Democratic Caucus encourages members to use the mailings to communicate with constituents, spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said. She said it was a good way for congressmen to focus on an issue or, if survey questions are used, get a handle on what constituents are thinking.
That argument doesn't persuade Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., who said he has never used the mailings in 13 years in Congress. "It's a waste of taxpayers' money," he said. "I don't believe in this self-promotion."
LaHood argues that franking should be used only to answer constituent mail. He has repeatedly introduced bills to ban mass mailings and just as often the legislation dies in committee.
For the House and Senate combined, the cost of taxpayer-paid mailings, including mass mailings, letters to individuals and groups of up to 500 people, was $34.3 million for fiscal year 2006, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. In 1988, before more restrictions were imposed on the use of mailings, the figure was more than three times larger, $113.3 million.
The biggest senders in the AP analysis included freshmen in tight re-election fights and veterans who coasted to victory.
Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., had the most pieces of mass mailings: 1,257,972. His mass mailings' cost of $171,286 was among the highest in the House, as was the overall cost of his franked mail, at $177,706.
Murphy, who advised constituents to maintain cars, was one of the House leaders in sending out bulk mail, with 1,003,836 pieces. The price tag: $165,650.
Among legislative leaders, the biggest spender was Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., who last fall became chairman of the House GOP Conference. He spent $133,053 to mail 844,336 pieces.
Other leaders in the last Congress and the current one were not big users.
The cost of postage is not the only expense for taxpayers. Printing and reproduction can add tens of thousands of dollars to a mailing's cost. The printing cost for one mailing from McCotter was $30,259.
There is a practical limit on how much can be spent on mailings.
Funding comes from a congressman's office budget, which ranges from $1.2 million to $1.4 million for payroll and other expenses. The more spent on mass mailings, the less money is available for such needs as staff, salaries and district offices.
Senators can also send franked mail, but the amount for each senator is specific and generally based on the number of addresses in a senator's state. At no point may it exceed $50,000 a year for mass mailings. For fiscal year 2004, overall mail allocations ranged from $31,746 to $298,850.
Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who mailed 906,788 pieces last year and won re-election with 60 percent of the vote, sees the mailings as helping him do his job.
"Ours is a representative government, requiring an active dialogue between elected officials and those they serve," Stearns said in a statement.
Mike Stokke, a political aide to recently resigned Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., when he was House speaker, said he would advise congressmen to send out mailings when they've fulfilled an important promise, such as getting money for a bridge in the district.
WASHINGTON -- U.S. House members spent $20.3 million in tax money last year to send constituents what's often the government equivalent of junk mail _ meeting announcements, tips on car care and job interviews, surveys on public policy and just plain bragging.
They sent nearly 116 million pieces of mail in all, many of them glossy productions filled with flattering photos and lists of the latest roads and bridges the lawmaker has brought home to the district, an Associated Press review of public records shows.
Some offered advice on topics one would more commonly expect to see in a consumer-advice column.
"Keep your car properly maintained" to improve mileage, suggested Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., in a newsletter on how to deal with rising energy prices.
Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., offered tips on home improvements.
And Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., who lost her primary race last year, sent out a taxpayer-funded newsletter a few months before the election that included this simple observation:
"Convicted felons can vote," she said, if "your" prison sentence has been served, parole or probation completed and fines paid. While campaigning, McKinney, who is black, noted that blacks make up a disproportionately large share of the prison population, which she said dilutes their voting strength.
A dozen House members spent more than $133,000 each to send 9.8 million pieces of mass mailings. Total cost? $1.8 million.
Sometimes the lawmakers' taxpayer funded mailings topped what they paid for direct mail through their campaign funds.
Of the 64 House members with at least $100,000 in taxpayer-funded mailing expenses _ and overwhelmingly for mass mailings _ 42 were Republicans and 22 were Democrats, the AP review found.
In sharp contrast, 59 lawmakers in the 435-member House _ 35 Republicans and 24 Democrats _ spent nothing on mass mailings. They tended to be the more experienced House members, often with 14 or more years of service.
Mass mailings cannot be blatantly political, but they still can have political benefits, said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers' Union, which has condemned mass mailings.
"A taxpayer-financed mailing doesn't have to say 're-elect me' to have an impact on voters," Sepp said. "A glossy newsletter splashed with the incumbent's achievements in Congress can build useful credentials a lawmaker can take with him to the ballot box. The franking privilege is one of the main cogs in Congress' PR machine."
Franking, practiced since the early days of the republic, lets members of Congress send mail with just a signature where the postage would normally be affixed. Although the mailings are regulated by a congressional commission to guard against overt political appeals and cannot go out within 90 days of an election, they still sometimes take a dig at the opposition.
In a June 2006 newsletter, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., noted that under the Republican majority, Congress had passed tax cuts that "benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working families."
Stark has been a regular among the biggest users of the congressional franking privilege. For 2006, his mass mailings alone cost $172,357, an amount large enough to rank him among the top congressional mailers. House documents reported his overall mailing costs to be about $37,000 less. The AP received no explanation for the apparent discrepancy from spokesmen for Stark, the House Administration Committee and House administration staff.
Some lawmakers defend the newsletters as a vital way of communicating with constituents.
"One of the biggest complaints my constituents had (with) my predecessor was that they never knew what was going on in Washington," said Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla. "They never had the opportunity to do surveys, etc. I promised I would communicate with them regularly."
Brown-Waite is one of the biggest users of bulk mail, with 657,951 pieces at a cost of $129,428 last year. That surpassed the approximately $110,000 her campaign spent on direct mailings and related costs.
One taxpayer-funded mailing featured a picture of her and the headline: "Medicare Prescription Drug Update: The Time to Act is Now." Another, entitled "Constituent Service Guide for the 5th District," included a survey and information about how to obtain U.S. flags, assistance from federal agencies and an appointment to a military academy.
The House Democratic Caucus encourages members to use the mailings to communicate with constituents, spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said. She said it was a good way for congressmen to focus on an issue or, if survey questions are used, get a handle on what constituents are thinking.
That argument doesn't persuade Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., who said he has never used the mailings in 13 years in Congress. "It's a waste of taxpayers' money," he said. "I don't believe in this self-promotion."
LaHood argues that franking should be used only to answer constituent mail. He has repeatedly introduced bills to ban mass mailings and just as often the legislation dies in committee.
For the House and Senate combined, the cost of taxpayer-paid mailings, including mass mailings, letters to individuals and groups of up to 500 people, was $34.3 million for fiscal year 2006, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. In 1988, before more restrictions were imposed on the use of mailings, the figure was more than three times larger, $113.3 million.
The biggest senders in the AP analysis included freshmen in tight re-election fights and veterans who coasted to victory.
Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., had the most pieces of mass mailings: 1,257,972. His mass mailings' cost of $171,286 was among the highest in the House, as was the overall cost of his franked mail, at $177,706.
Murphy, who advised constituents to maintain cars, was one of the House leaders in sending out bulk mail, with 1,003,836 pieces. The price tag: $165,650.
Among legislative leaders, the biggest spender was Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., who last fall became chairman of the House GOP Conference. He spent $133,053 to mail 844,336 pieces.
Other leaders in the last Congress and the current one were not big users.
The cost of postage is not the only expense for taxpayers. Printing and reproduction can add tens of thousands of dollars to a mailing's cost. The printing cost for one mailing from McCotter was $30,259.
There is a practical limit on how much can be spent on mailings.
Funding comes from a congressman's office budget, which ranges from $1.2 million to $1.4 million for payroll and other expenses. The more spent on mass mailings, the less money is available for such needs as staff, salaries and district offices.
Senators can also send franked mail, but the amount for each senator is specific and generally based on the number of addresses in a senator's state. At no point may it exceed $50,000 a year for mass mailings. For fiscal year 2004, overall mail allocations ranged from $31,746 to $298,850.
Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who mailed 906,788 pieces last year and won re-election with 60 percent of the vote, sees the mailings as helping him do his job.
"Ours is a representative government, requiring an active dialogue between elected officials and those they serve," Stearns said in a statement.
Mike Stokke, a political aide to recently resigned Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., when he was House speaker, said he would advise congressmen to send out mailings when they've fulfilled an important promise, such as getting money for a bridge in the district.
more...
alterego
07-13 02:25 PM
the better way is to mention: 1) eb3 with earlier PD (before the end of 2005), the prevailing wage category was set higher, i.e, salary $60K fell in eb3 in 2004 but could be in eb2 in 2006. 2) LC based eb3 should be processed before perm based eb2, as the processing time for this step should be weighted to be evaluated in a bit fair way.
Now point number 2 is a suggestion worth some thought and which might get some traction. I am not sure whether it would require a legislative fix.
Now point number 2 is a suggestion worth some thought and which might get some traction. I am not sure whether it would require a legislative fix.
hot If you want the best flagpole
sanju
04-08 07:17 AM
Good post, I would like to add that:
This is an interesting bill and I feel it'll pass. There are lot of gotcha's but there are some good things. I'm glad to see H1-B rights and whistleblower sections. This was way past due. Really, this is more of a culmination of those few employers who have tried to exploit the system / employees.
The summary document says that Whistleblower protection does not protect immigration status. So the current language of "Whistleblower protection" has NOT much new to offer because Whistleblower protection is already part of the federal law (outside of immigration act). Here is some info:
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/whistle.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
key points to ponder:
- Finally IRS and USICS have come together. !! .. thats a big blow to the body shoppers ( may be a good thing)
There is already a requirement in the Tax law to send the datab/W-2 of each employee (including the employees on H1) to IRS. So much so that if a company you worked for last year has closed down, you could go to the local IRS office to get your W-2 (from IRS).
-> 50 employees cant have more than 50% H1B's. I think this will basicaly create many smaller consulting companies nothing else. This I don't like .. could be bad for genuine businesses.
To get around 50% requirements, as the greenguru mentioned, the employers could bend around the system by having companies with employee size < 50. So it will be an inconvenience for them, but there are ways and means to get around. The problem will be faced by people already here waiting for green cards. If your employer has more than 50% on H1, they will have to file H1 from the sister company and the new law will be applicable to the new H1. So the people already here on H1 will suffer the most.
I hope it doesnt, without any amendments. Maybe a friendlier bill with strict H1-B rights would be nice.
Well said!! This bill is not friendly and a better bill, which is not imposing unnecessary restrictions and has worker protection provisions for all H1 employees will be better in making the H1 process equitable and workable.
This is an interesting bill and I feel it'll pass. There are lot of gotcha's but there are some good things. I'm glad to see H1-B rights and whistleblower sections. This was way past due. Really, this is more of a culmination of those few employers who have tried to exploit the system / employees.
The summary document says that Whistleblower protection does not protect immigration status. So the current language of "Whistleblower protection" has NOT much new to offer because Whistleblower protection is already part of the federal law (outside of immigration act). Here is some info:
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/whistle.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
key points to ponder:
- Finally IRS and USICS have come together. !! .. thats a big blow to the body shoppers ( may be a good thing)
There is already a requirement in the Tax law to send the datab/W-2 of each employee (including the employees on H1) to IRS. So much so that if a company you worked for last year has closed down, you could go to the local IRS office to get your W-2 (from IRS).
-> 50 employees cant have more than 50% H1B's. I think this will basicaly create many smaller consulting companies nothing else. This I don't like .. could be bad for genuine businesses.
To get around 50% requirements, as the greenguru mentioned, the employers could bend around the system by having companies with employee size < 50. So it will be an inconvenience for them, but there are ways and means to get around. The problem will be faced by people already here waiting for green cards. If your employer has more than 50% on H1, they will have to file H1 from the sister company and the new law will be applicable to the new H1. So the people already here on H1 will suffer the most.
I hope it doesnt, without any amendments. Maybe a friendlier bill with strict H1-B rights would be nice.
Well said!! This bill is not friendly and a better bill, which is not imposing unnecessary restrictions and has worker protection provisions for all H1 employees will be better in making the H1 process equitable and workable.
more...
house Flag Poles Model No.:CTO17856
SunnySurya
08-05 03:00 PM
:D:D:D:D:D:D
Seems to me he started the flood and left....I was going thru this thread, and after couple of pages Rolling_flood seems to have vanished. I think he got what he wanted...a pointless debate. It was funny though to read... :D
Seems to me he started the flood and left....I was going thru this thread, and after couple of pages Rolling_flood seems to have vanished. I think he got what he wanted...a pointless debate. It was funny though to read... :D
tattoo Product Name: Flag Pole
Sunx_2004
07-10 02:53 PM
Just follow the law. There are lots of protections in it for us.
UN, I am impressed by your knowledge of immigration laws. Can you point me in right direction as to where I find information regarding the current immigration laws and their interpretations.
UN, I am impressed by your knowledge of immigration laws. Can you point me in right direction as to where I find information regarding the current immigration laws and their interpretations.
more...
pictures Wooden Flag Pole. Item No.
NKR
04-14 02:53 PM
what is your point duuude when you say "Let�s say you have a small kid and you are living in an apartment, after 10 years you save enough money to buy a big house and you then eventually you buy it. Then you ask the your kid �do you like the house?�. He will reply �it�s very nice dad, but can you give you give my childhood now?.�
do you mean to say all those who are renting will buy after 10 years or do you mean to say that children who grow up in rented house or appt ..don't have a childhood ?? as it was mentioned in earlier posts ..there is a greater chance that your son / daughter will find a likeminded play friend in a good apartment complex then in a subdivision of houses.
You will never learn. Anyways, if you read my earlier posts you would know that I have said that people who most people who live in apartments would be having valid reasons. I have also said that if I were in CA. I would be living in an apartment too. I am never against renting or living in an apartment, but I am against renting when it makes perfect sense to buy and when the time is right (which of course is NOT NOW).
My counter arguments are for people who were scaring people into not buying a house when things are conducive for them. Note, when I say conducive it means all things considered as in the time is right, they have a good job, have found a very good deal in a location having a very good school and they have found something which has an extra room when their elderly parents visit them.
do you mean to say all those who are renting will buy after 10 years or do you mean to say that children who grow up in rented house or appt ..don't have a childhood ?? as it was mentioned in earlier posts ..there is a greater chance that your son / daughter will find a likeminded play friend in a good apartment complex then in a subdivision of houses.
You will never learn. Anyways, if you read my earlier posts you would know that I have said that people who most people who live in apartments would be having valid reasons. I have also said that if I were in CA. I would be living in an apartment too. I am never against renting or living in an apartment, but I am against renting when it makes perfect sense to buy and when the time is right (which of course is NOT NOW).
My counter arguments are for people who were scaring people into not buying a house when things are conducive for them. Note, when I say conducive it means all things considered as in the time is right, they have a good job, have found a very good deal in a location having a very good school and they have found something which has an extra room when their elderly parents visit them.
dresses 6#39; Flag Pole/ Mounting
americandesi
04-15 06:37 PM
3. Will the stress level increase after buying the house (again worried for making payments, losing jobs). Is it worth it.
It's definetly not worth it. Here's an artice on one such riches to rags story.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/
As per the article "She has had to take extreme measures to pay for her interest-only mortgage of $2,500 a month"
It's definetly not worth it. Here's an artice on one such riches to rags story.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/
As per the article "She has had to take extreme measures to pay for her interest-only mortgage of $2,500 a month"
more...
makeup it into a flagpole. No
Administrator2
04-08 07:22 AM
I might be interesting to check with a lawyer whether:
H1B extensions based on I-140 (beyond 6 years) are same as normal H1B extensions(without I-140). In other words, if someone has an I-140 approved does this bill still affect his H1B extension petition(assuming he is consulting)?
We have already checked with an attorney before posting this thread. You are welcome to check with an attorney and post your attorney's opinion here, for other members.
H1B extensions based on I-140 (beyond 6 years) are same as normal H1B extensions(without I-140). In other words, if someone has an I-140 approved does this bill still affect his H1B extension petition(assuming he is consulting)?
We have already checked with an attorney before posting this thread. You are welcome to check with an attorney and post your attorney's opinion here, for other members.
girlfriend Fiberglass Flag Pole (NEW
gc4me
08-11 04:33 PM
Two office colleagues, a British and an Indian are having their lunch in a restaurant . The Indian says," You know my parents are forcing me to get married to this so called homely girl from a village whom I haven't even met once. We call this arranged marriage. I don't want to marry a girl whom I don't love...I told them this quite openly and since then I have a hell lot of family problems."
The British said, "So you think there are no problems in a love marriage?...
Let me tell you my story. I married a widow with a daughter whom I deeply loved and dated for 3 years. After a couple of years, my father fell in love with my step-daughter & married her and so my father became my son-in-law and I became my father's father-in-law. My daughter is my mother and my wife became my grandmother. More problems occurred when I had a son. My son is my father's brother and so he's my uncle. Situations turned worse when my father had a son. Now my father's son i.e. my brother is my grandson. Ultimately, I have become my own grand father and I am my own grandson. And you say you have family problems.... Give me a break!!"
The British said, "So you think there are no problems in a love marriage?...
Let me tell you my story. I married a widow with a daughter whom I deeply loved and dated for 3 years. After a couple of years, my father fell in love with my step-daughter & married her and so my father became my son-in-law and I became my father's father-in-law. My daughter is my mother and my wife became my grandmother. More problems occurred when I had a son. My son is my father's brother and so he's my uncle. Situations turned worse when my father had a son. Now my father's son i.e. my brother is my grandson. Ultimately, I have become my own grand father and I am my own grandson. And you say you have family problems.... Give me a break!!"
hairstyles 1quot; Flag Pole bracket. Item no:
SunnySurya
08-05 10:44 AM
May I ask, why you agree with PD porting and not labor substitution... Was it because you were affected in later case?
Let us face it , we all are selfish. And if our self interest match then we are an organization.
here is another point:
i think its a childish and selfish idea...i agree labor substitution was absolute nonsense...but not PD porting!
Let us face it , we all are selfish. And if our self interest match then we are an organization.
here is another point:
i think its a childish and selfish idea...i agree labor substitution was absolute nonsense...but not PD porting!
sc3
08-05 06:41 PM
Come on!, give me a break. You guys are now worried that EB3 will spoil your (what I still consider, ill gotten) party by PD porting. You now come up with arguments about what is EB2.
First argument: "EB2 requires advanced degree"
If that is the case, there is no one who is eligible for Eb2, as "Advanced degrees" is not a degree that is offered by any university in US. Mostly the ones I know offer, Masters and PHD and likes. No one says I am offering "advanced degree". ;)
Further more, advanced degree is subjective. Bachelors is advanced compared to Diploma, which is advanced compared to 10th passed, which is advanced compared someone who failed 10th.
Second: It is not fair to allow EB3s to port.
It is in the law. that part is not grounds for a lawsuit. If you still want to complain, then complain about the fact that AC21 allows you to jump jobs without even getting your GC.
Third (these are my own points)
When people got their F1, they said there are here without immigrant intention. Why is USCIS giving them H1 and then also accepting GCs for them. Come to think of it, OPT is not required by any university for granting the degree, so why are F1s even allowed to work??
The point I am trying to make is that if you try to open one can of worms, everyone else has a Costo or a Sams club to go to and buy a boat load of cans of worms to open - that is going to put you in a bad situation.
First argument: "EB2 requires advanced degree"
If that is the case, there is no one who is eligible for Eb2, as "Advanced degrees" is not a degree that is offered by any university in US. Mostly the ones I know offer, Masters and PHD and likes. No one says I am offering "advanced degree". ;)
Further more, advanced degree is subjective. Bachelors is advanced compared to Diploma, which is advanced compared to 10th passed, which is advanced compared someone who failed 10th.
Second: It is not fair to allow EB3s to port.
It is in the law. that part is not grounds for a lawsuit. If you still want to complain, then complain about the fact that AC21 allows you to jump jobs without even getting your GC.
Third (these are my own points)
When people got their F1, they said there are here without immigrant intention. Why is USCIS giving them H1 and then also accepting GCs for them. Come to think of it, OPT is not required by any university for granting the degree, so why are F1s even allowed to work??
The point I am trying to make is that if you try to open one can of worms, everyone else has a Costo or a Sams club to go to and buy a boat load of cans of worms to open - that is going to put you in a bad situation.
mrajatish
04-08 11:39 PM
I think we all agree that H1B visa needs reform. But reform has to stop the abuse of the system, not break the system itself.
1. How can we ever defend a reform that prevents H1B holder from performong services for another client? Does that mean Deloitte, IBM, BCG, Mckenzie et.al. will not be able to employ any foreign national any more?
2. How can we mandate that someone, who might have their labor and 140 approved, has to go through a certification process to renew H1 for the same job?
These are some of the many things wrong with this bill. If Senator Durbin wants to really make "American workers first; H1B abuse limited" work, he might attempt to do the following:
1. Free up the system such that a temporary worker can certify himself/herself for a job position for a few years (aka EAD for 3 years without being tied to an employer). The employer has to pay the same prevailing wage etc.
2. Do not abuse the worker by asking him/her to pay for Social Security and Medicare when you call him "temporary" worker. H1B workers should be exempt from such taxes till they file 485 (Adjustment of status).
And there are many more that I can think of that makes sense. Hope we, as a group, can prevail upon the good sense of the U.S. congress and pass meaningful reform, not a hogwash.
1. How can we ever defend a reform that prevents H1B holder from performong services for another client? Does that mean Deloitte, IBM, BCG, Mckenzie et.al. will not be able to employ any foreign national any more?
2. How can we mandate that someone, who might have their labor and 140 approved, has to go through a certification process to renew H1 for the same job?
These are some of the many things wrong with this bill. If Senator Durbin wants to really make "American workers first; H1B abuse limited" work, he might attempt to do the following:
1. Free up the system such that a temporary worker can certify himself/herself for a job position for a few years (aka EAD for 3 years without being tied to an employer). The employer has to pay the same prevailing wage etc.
2. Do not abuse the worker by asking him/her to pay for Social Security and Medicare when you call him "temporary" worker. H1B workers should be exempt from such taxes till they file 485 (Adjustment of status).
And there are many more that I can think of that makes sense. Hope we, as a group, can prevail upon the good sense of the U.S. congress and pass meaningful reform, not a hogwash.
No comments:
Post a Comment