desi3933
07-12 10:33 AM
My employer back in 2001 and 2002 did not pay me in a consistent way..I was paid once in every three months during the time I was in bench. I have the W2 returns from those two years which shows average income of only 29K. However I had valid visa status and h1b approval from my employer as well as employment verification letter from them. Now i am with a new employer since 2003 and do not have any problems with them and get paid regularly. After reading manub's post I am also worried if my I485 will be denied whenever I apply for it... or is there somethings I can take care of before? It is not my fault that the employer did not pay me consistently - right?
There are some serious issues here.
You got 29k salary for 2 years and still maintain that you had valid status for these 2 years.
I suggest you consult a good attorney.
______________________________
Not a legal advice.
There are some serious issues here.
You got 29k salary for 2 years and still maintain that you had valid status for these 2 years.
I suggest you consult a good attorney.
______________________________
Not a legal advice.
wallpaper David Cook Album Cover
svn
03-31 07:27 PM
USCIS seems to be making a coordinated attempt to preadjudicate in order to avoid future backlogs (to achieve their metrics on processing times). See thread on Processing Time Targets they have set for themselves: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24747
Refugee_New
01-07 09:44 AM
If you are comparing the Sivakasi rocket with the Hamas's rocket, I can only sympathize with you. You certainly need to learn a lot--atleast the definition of 'Rocket' or 'Terrorists'.
My point is sivakasi rocket has the capability of killing 6 people and 7000 hamas rockets taken lesser than that. We are reacting as if they have wiped out the entire nation. How inferior these rockets are when compared to sivakasi rocket. I am not justifying the rocket attack, but pointing out their impact and the voilent reaction to that.
Every nation has right to defend itself and its people. Isreal has the same rights to protect people. That doesn't mean they can go and kill innocent civilians including elderly person, women, children, shcool children and bombing schools, hospitals, detroying infrastructure etc. After killing school kids, just dont justify your killing by saying they use kids as human shield. Dont destroy and don't lie.
My point is sivakasi rocket has the capability of killing 6 people and 7000 hamas rockets taken lesser than that. We are reacting as if they have wiped out the entire nation. How inferior these rockets are when compared to sivakasi rocket. I am not justifying the rocket attack, but pointing out their impact and the voilent reaction to that.
Every nation has right to defend itself and its people. Isreal has the same rights to protect people. That doesn't mean they can go and kill innocent civilians including elderly person, women, children, shcool children and bombing schools, hospitals, detroying infrastructure etc. After killing school kids, just dont justify your killing by saying they use kids as human shield. Dont destroy and don't lie.
2011 david cook album artwork.
%252BThanx%252Bto%252BOmar.png "david cook album cover.")
xyzgc
12-28 12:21 AM
Please don't advocate war.
If India can defeat the entire British Empire without firing a weapon, I can't believe that there isn't an ingenuitive solution to this mess. I can't believe that Indians and Pakistanis can't be the ones to solve it without weapons, especially nuclear ones.
Nuclear weapons technology is old. Soon every country (and undergraduate engineering student) will posses the knowledge to build them. Yet if we continue to handle disputes in the same way that was bred into us when our people hunted on some African plane, it will be the end of all of us.
India defeating entire British empire without firing a weapon? Where did this come from? British colonized Indians for 150 years!
If Indians were a military power, they wouldn't have been colonized in the first place.
Do you seriously believe the dogma of non-violence Quit India movement drove the British away?:)
If India can defeat the entire British Empire without firing a weapon, I can't believe that there isn't an ingenuitive solution to this mess. I can't believe that Indians and Pakistanis can't be the ones to solve it without weapons, especially nuclear ones.
Nuclear weapons technology is old. Soon every country (and undergraduate engineering student) will posses the knowledge to build them. Yet if we continue to handle disputes in the same way that was bred into us when our people hunted on some African plane, it will be the end of all of us.
India defeating entire British empire without firing a weapon? Where did this come from? British colonized Indians for 150 years!
If Indians were a military power, they wouldn't have been colonized in the first place.
Do you seriously believe the dogma of non-violence Quit India movement drove the British away?:)
more...
Macaca
12-20 08:07 AM
Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews) By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 20, 2007
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
addsf345
12-18 02:35 PM
:mad:Abdul Rehman Antulay. Current cabinet minister and EX Maharastra CM. The guy who created biggest cement scandal at the time and was exposed by Arun Shourie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._R._Antulay
what he did is not surprising.
Mohd. Azharudding also did it before.
He was selected captain, after some of the worst historical defeats as a captain - he was still trusted to retain captainship by BCCI.
However after years of captianship, when he was caught red-handed in match fixing scandal, he did not even wasted a moment to give a statement that he is being harrased in hindu india because he is a minority.:mad::mad:
similary saif ali khan after having a hindu mother, hindu ex-wife, hindu girlfriend and a stardom and large number of hindu fans, did not wasted a moment but blamed hindus that being a muslim he is not able to buy a flat in mumbai.
what do you expect from such mentality?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._R._Antulay
what he did is not surprising.
Mohd. Azharudding also did it before.
He was selected captain, after some of the worst historical defeats as a captain - he was still trusted to retain captainship by BCCI.
However after years of captianship, when he was caught red-handed in match fixing scandal, he did not even wasted a moment to give a statement that he is being harrased in hindu india because he is a minority.:mad::mad:
similary saif ali khan after having a hindu mother, hindu ex-wife, hindu girlfriend and a stardom and large number of hindu fans, did not wasted a moment but blamed hindus that being a muslim he is not able to buy a flat in mumbai.
what do you expect from such mentality?
more...
hiralal
06-06 11:35 PM
I agree the above sounds good on paper and believe me I have a friend who lived like that from 2002 till 2008 ... he is not in IT but is / was a business man (now he does not have any business). he bought a house for 750 to 800K (it was worth a million during the boom - but no buyers and hence he got it for 750). now he has lost his business and house is in foreclosure. the trouble for him is that he is having a tough time trying to live a life within his means ... needless to say, he had a tough time trying to make payments and he even tried to cut costs by not switching on a/c during hot hot months or by shivering during cold months ..on the contrary, myself in my modest rental ..I never worried about a/c costs and never worried about rental payments (he and his family spent sleepless nights). also because of his high cost of living ..he had to do desperate things (don't want to get into details here)
I would rather stay in a modest place and spend the remainder money in good life. just buying a big house is not high standard of living ..it is how you live your life and you can live life king size in apartment too (or a rented house) !!
and hence posts like the above sound good in paper and in movies ..reality is tough and rotten !!
I have a quick question though ..say your EAD is approved for 2 years and 3 months from now, 485 is denied for whatever reason ..can you stay till the EAD expiration ? (I guess no) ...if no, then how long can you stay ??
I would rather stay in a modest place and spend the remainder money in good life. just buying a big house is not high standard of living ..it is how you live your life and you can live life king size in apartment too (or a rented house) !!
and hence posts like the above sound good in paper and in movies ..reality is tough and rotten !!
I have a quick question though ..say your EAD is approved for 2 years and 3 months from now, 485 is denied for whatever reason ..can you stay till the EAD expiration ? (I guess no) ...if no, then how long can you stay ??
2010 david cook album cover.
hiralal
06-05 11:48 PM
here is a superb report ...really worth reading ..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14166113/T2-Partners-Presentation-on-the-Mortgage-Crisis4309-3
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14166113/T2-Partners-Presentation-on-the-Mortgage-Crisis4309-3
more...
gomirage
06-07 01:13 AM
I felt the same way before. I said to myself I wouldn't buy a house until I get my GC. That was until a builder offered me a nice offer. I was renting a two bedroom apartment for $1200 as I have a family with 3 small kids.
The builder offered me a 2,600 sq. ft., 4 bed-room home at $1450 per month, including taxes and insurance, fixed for 30 years. I guessed that the $250 difference from rent is nothing compared to the benefit of owning a home. The interest part of my first monthly amortization is about $800, $400 go to principal, and $250 go to taxes and insurance.
Have you done your math ? Granted those $250 looks chump change for you, but what if it was invested for a return of 5% while the house may not be back at sales level for another 10 to 15 years ?
No one will argue with you about buying a house for yours kids pleasure though.
The builder offered me a 2,600 sq. ft., 4 bed-room home at $1450 per month, including taxes and insurance, fixed for 30 years. I guessed that the $250 difference from rent is nothing compared to the benefit of owning a home. The interest part of my first monthly amortization is about $800, $400 go to principal, and $250 go to taxes and insurance.
Have you done your math ? Granted those $250 looks chump change for you, but what if it was invested for a return of 5% while the house may not be back at sales level for another 10 to 15 years ?
No one will argue with you about buying a house for yours kids pleasure though.
hair david cook album cover.
kumarc123
09-26 09:20 AM
Hello there,
I wont give red dots to anyone who has a political point of view, at this point in time we cannot decide on anything. The economy is going through a very rough patch, no one can can conclude anything.
But I feel something good is going to come for the immigrants, as the us population knows, highly skilled immigrants have a buying power and not to forget the highest number of new business are opened by immigrants in this country.
Lets no loose our focus on discussing Obama or his opponent, we need to focus on our Eb community and measures on making it stronger.
Thanks
I wont give red dots to anyone who has a political point of view, at this point in time we cannot decide on anything. The economy is going through a very rough patch, no one can can conclude anything.
But I feel something good is going to come for the immigrants, as the us population knows, highly skilled immigrants have a buying power and not to forget the highest number of new business are opened by immigrants in this country.
Lets no loose our focus on discussing Obama or his opponent, we need to focus on our Eb community and measures on making it stronger.
Thanks
more...
delax
07-13 05:17 PM
Delax, EB1 with PD 2008 is getting their GC within months not because they utilize an 100% spill over from 'somewhere'. It is just because they do not have enough applicants in the queue and hence no retrogression.
Honestly, 'i don't think' the 'advantage' that EB3 and EB2 have - using spillover from other categories. Correct me if I was wrong.
willwin - What we are essentially saying is to artificially retrogress EB2 than it otherwise would have so that an EB3 who is waiting for 7 years gets his GC first - thats really what the spillover break up will do. Similarly an argument can be made to artificially retrogress EB1 so that an EB2 who is waiting for 4 years gets his GC first.
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
Honestly, 'i don't think' the 'advantage' that EB3 and EB2 have - using spillover from other categories. Correct me if I was wrong.
willwin - What we are essentially saying is to artificially retrogress EB2 than it otherwise would have so that an EB3 who is waiting for 7 years gets his GC first - thats really what the spillover break up will do. Similarly an argument can be made to artificially retrogress EB1 so that an EB2 who is waiting for 4 years gets his GC first.
Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter.
Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category.
Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.
hot hot david cook album art.
siravi
09-30 05:41 PM
If Obama becomes president can he restore the faith of high-skilled immigrant who play by the books and still have to wait for decades to get their Green Card.
Many have been looking at the high-skilled immigrants through a narrow pin hole, even Sen Durbin has been swayed by such critics. NFAP report shows that almost 50% of the private venture backed companies started between 1995 and 2005 are founded by immigrants. Guess what Sen. Durbin and high-skilled immigrant critics majority of those immigrants would've taken the route of H1 -> GreenCard -> US citizen. Why are Sen. Durbin so short sighted on the high-skilled immigration system? Hope Obama can look at the high-skilled immigration system with a long term perspective and persuade his colleagues in Congress to enact a legislation to fix this broken system.
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
Hmm this is a tough one ....as much as I'd like to see, really, see Obama get the chance to make the "change" he wants to bring about, having Sen. Durbin along with him, driving the immigration policy does not bode well. And by the way, with that outlook on high-skilled immigration how can he claim he is "for change"? Very likely, am missing something here, so forgive me (and enlighten me!). Because I do, sincerely want to see him as the president. But it does seem that Sen. Durbin has been rather hostile towards employment-based immigration and that makes the Obama-for-prez a really tough deal.
Have been here for 12+ years, working as now a teacher and before that as a student. Have always been responsible --paying regular taxes, following the long, obstacles ridden trail to get GC, but I think now its getting very tiresome and unfair and its high time someone really looked into our issues and made "change" for the better.
Many have been looking at the high-skilled immigrants through a narrow pin hole, even Sen Durbin has been swayed by such critics. NFAP report shows that almost 50% of the private venture backed companies started between 1995 and 2005 are founded by immigrants. Guess what Sen. Durbin and high-skilled immigrant critics majority of those immigrants would've taken the route of H1 -> GreenCard -> US citizen. Why are Sen. Durbin so short sighted on the high-skilled immigration system? Hope Obama can look at the high-skilled immigration system with a long term perspective and persuade his colleagues in Congress to enact a legislation to fix this broken system.
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
Hmm this is a tough one ....as much as I'd like to see, really, see Obama get the chance to make the "change" he wants to bring about, having Sen. Durbin along with him, driving the immigration policy does not bode well. And by the way, with that outlook on high-skilled immigration how can he claim he is "for change"? Very likely, am missing something here, so forgive me (and enlighten me!). Because I do, sincerely want to see him as the president. But it does seem that Sen. Durbin has been rather hostile towards employment-based immigration and that makes the Obama-for-prez a really tough deal.
Have been here for 12+ years, working as now a teacher and before that as a student. Have always been responsible --paying regular taxes, following the long, obstacles ridden trail to get GC, but I think now its getting very tiresome and unfair and its high time someone really looked into our issues and made "change" for the better.
more...
house david cook album artwork.
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
tattoo David Cook - The Last Goodbye
lfwf
08-05 02:37 PM
And let me add another twist to the story.
The Guy with Masters degree is working with a desi sweatshop and convinced his masters (No pun) to file for Eb2 even though his job duties were just dish out code like a high school grad can do. On the other hand there was another guy who was in US for a decade , gone though masters degree and got a very good job in a very good company. He was eligible for EB2 but his only mistake was to not force the company to file a EB2 case or even worse his lawyer makes a mistake and files under Eb3 even though the job he was in and he are qualified as Eb2. The company wants to make amends now by filing a EB2 case and first MS guy (sweatshop guy) wants him to start again and wait for another decade.
The kicker : The sweat shop labor guy works in the same company as contractor and reports to the second guy and in the same reporting chain, just two levels below him.
How about another story :
Both guys go to the same engg school back home. One guy passed with distinction and got a job immediately in a respectable company immediately. Other guy takes two additional years to finish the degree , but his dad was rich enough to send him to the US to complete the MS and now he thinks he is smarter than every one else and needs a special place in the queue.
You can come up with 100s of stories if not more. Therefore you can't generalize. Just don't think all those who filed under EB2 first are with MS and smarter than others and all those who are Eb3 are here by shady means.
I am not taking sides here, but it is not a question of "smarter". I have a simple question. Do years spent doing MS/PhD have no value? They count for nothing in PD. On the other hand a person with a BS accumulates 5 years in the same time and ports. Now he/she is a full 5 years ahead of the one that pursued the education route. Fair?
I don't think that porting is all fair. Just MHO that the 5 year experience rule negates all efforts in getting a masters degree/PhD and puts those people at a huge disadvantage. The system tried to make up for that by creating preference categories. Not that they work perfectly of course as many of you have pointed out.
So let me come to the point, question for OP. Are you against all porting? Or only against porting based on lack of qualifications for an EB2 job originally- then porting 5 years later based on the additional experience alone?
BTW I resent the insinuation that 1% of EB2s are genuine. The same can be said of many many EB3s- remember the qualifications required are much lower.
I also resent the idea that all US Masters folks are just "rich kids". Most people work through the degree and/or take loans. Please don't start making needless statements. If you had a masters originally and your job qualified as EB2 but your company refused- I feel for you, I really do. There should be a solution to your problem. That does not mean that those who did get EB2 were all suddenly not "genuine".
Also I want to clarify something- this is purely objective now. Yes GC is for a "future job" but folks are over reaching with some of the arguments. In order to get an EB2 (or EB3) for this "future job- you either have to show current employment with the sponsor OR show the job offer qualifying for that category at the time you apply. The "future job" cannot be a nebulous idea that you make concrete at a later time.
The Guy with Masters degree is working with a desi sweatshop and convinced his masters (No pun) to file for Eb2 even though his job duties were just dish out code like a high school grad can do. On the other hand there was another guy who was in US for a decade , gone though masters degree and got a very good job in a very good company. He was eligible for EB2 but his only mistake was to not force the company to file a EB2 case or even worse his lawyer makes a mistake and files under Eb3 even though the job he was in and he are qualified as Eb2. The company wants to make amends now by filing a EB2 case and first MS guy (sweatshop guy) wants him to start again and wait for another decade.
The kicker : The sweat shop labor guy works in the same company as contractor and reports to the second guy and in the same reporting chain, just two levels below him.
How about another story :
Both guys go to the same engg school back home. One guy passed with distinction and got a job immediately in a respectable company immediately. Other guy takes two additional years to finish the degree , but his dad was rich enough to send him to the US to complete the MS and now he thinks he is smarter than every one else and needs a special place in the queue.
You can come up with 100s of stories if not more. Therefore you can't generalize. Just don't think all those who filed under EB2 first are with MS and smarter than others and all those who are Eb3 are here by shady means.
I am not taking sides here, but it is not a question of "smarter". I have a simple question. Do years spent doing MS/PhD have no value? They count for nothing in PD. On the other hand a person with a BS accumulates 5 years in the same time and ports. Now he/she is a full 5 years ahead of the one that pursued the education route. Fair?
I don't think that porting is all fair. Just MHO that the 5 year experience rule negates all efforts in getting a masters degree/PhD and puts those people at a huge disadvantage. The system tried to make up for that by creating preference categories. Not that they work perfectly of course as many of you have pointed out.
So let me come to the point, question for OP. Are you against all porting? Or only against porting based on lack of qualifications for an EB2 job originally- then porting 5 years later based on the additional experience alone?
BTW I resent the insinuation that 1% of EB2s are genuine. The same can be said of many many EB3s- remember the qualifications required are much lower.
I also resent the idea that all US Masters folks are just "rich kids". Most people work through the degree and/or take loans. Please don't start making needless statements. If you had a masters originally and your job qualified as EB2 but your company refused- I feel for you, I really do. There should be a solution to your problem. That does not mean that those who did get EB2 were all suddenly not "genuine".
Also I want to clarify something- this is purely objective now. Yes GC is for a "future job" but folks are over reaching with some of the arguments. In order to get an EB2 (or EB3) for this "future job- you either have to show current employment with the sponsor OR show the job offer qualifying for that category at the time you apply. The "future job" cannot be a nebulous idea that you make concrete at a later time.
more...
pictures 2010 Music david cook album
BondJ
04-08 11:45 PM
If this bill passes along with CIR, that gives the ability to file for 485 even without visa numbers being available, I think most of the placement companies would file for LC (PERM) as soon as they recruit someone (and get H1 approved). That would allow them to file for 140 and 485. Am I missing something here?
dresses 2011 david cook album cover.
jonty_11
04-09 11:28 AM
I am all for cleaning the system and reforming H1B - but I oppose an ill conceived half measure such as the one Senator Durbin/Grassley is proposing.
My main concern is two fold:
1. Let us assume I am a very bright individual and I am currently in Harvard. If I graduate from Harvard Business School, and I want to join McKenzie, can I do that? Can I ever be a Management consultant in US if I want to (read I as any random Joe who is not US citizen/GC holder)
2. Can I switch jobs within a couple of weeks if I need to (I refers to someone who works for a good company but perceives opportunities else where) - this is important as my competition (US citizen/GC holder) has no restriction in place for them. This is also important during recession when I might be a valuable asset to another company but the company cannot afford to wait.
My point is: definitely prevent abuse of the system, but not by putting more shackles on the hapless employee. Give the employee freedom to move anywhere for a certain period of time (could be 3 yrs renewable 2 times as per current H1b) and have strict penalties if this employee overstays visa etc.
Additionally, if employers abuse the system, send them to jail right away (and have whistle blower immigrant status protection). Make employers more accountable than they are today.
Just my 2 cents.....
matter of fact is the spinelesss legislators can only go after the individual(employees), and lick the a** ot corporate America.
IV ' s position is - Opposing the Bill, if some members think otherwise, so be it.
My main concern is two fold:
1. Let us assume I am a very bright individual and I am currently in Harvard. If I graduate from Harvard Business School, and I want to join McKenzie, can I do that? Can I ever be a Management consultant in US if I want to (read I as any random Joe who is not US citizen/GC holder)
2. Can I switch jobs within a couple of weeks if I need to (I refers to someone who works for a good company but perceives opportunities else where) - this is important as my competition (US citizen/GC holder) has no restriction in place for them. This is also important during recession when I might be a valuable asset to another company but the company cannot afford to wait.
My point is: definitely prevent abuse of the system, but not by putting more shackles on the hapless employee. Give the employee freedom to move anywhere for a certain period of time (could be 3 yrs renewable 2 times as per current H1b) and have strict penalties if this employee overstays visa etc.
Additionally, if employers abuse the system, send them to jail right away (and have whistle blower immigrant status protection). Make employers more accountable than they are today.
Just my 2 cents.....
matter of fact is the spinelesss legislators can only go after the individual(employees), and lick the a** ot corporate America.
IV ' s position is - Opposing the Bill, if some members think otherwise, so be it.
more...
makeup girlfriend david cook album
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
girlfriend hair girlfriend david cook album david cook album art. hot New Album david
yrspassby
08-07 04:41 PM
A doctor, a lawyer, a little boy and a priest were out for a Sunday afternoon flight on a small private plane. Suddenly, the plane developed engine trouble.
In spite of the best efforts of the pilot, the plane started to go down. Finally, the pilot grabbed a parachute, yelled to the passengers that they had better jump, and bailed out.
Unfortunately, there were only three parachutes remaining.
The doctor grabbed one and said "I'm a doctor, I save lives, so I must live," and jumped out.
The lawyer then said, "I'm a lawyer and lawyers are the smartest people in the world. I deserve to live."
He also grabbed a parachute and jumped.
The priest looked at the little boy and said, "My son, I've lived a long and full life. You are young and have your whole life ahead of you. Take the last parachute and live in peace."
The little boy handed the parachute back to the priest and said, "Not to worry, Father. The 'smartest man in the world' just took off with my back pack."
;););)
In spite of the best efforts of the pilot, the plane started to go down. Finally, the pilot grabbed a parachute, yelled to the passengers that they had better jump, and bailed out.
Unfortunately, there were only three parachutes remaining.
The doctor grabbed one and said "I'm a doctor, I save lives, so I must live," and jumped out.
The lawyer then said, "I'm a lawyer and lawyers are the smartest people in the world. I deserve to live."
He also grabbed a parachute and jumped.
The priest looked at the little boy and said, "My son, I've lived a long and full life. You are young and have your whole life ahead of you. Take the last parachute and live in peace."
The little boy handed the parachute back to the priest and said, "Not to worry, Father. The 'smartest man in the world' just took off with my back pack."
;););)
hairstyles 2011 david cook album art.
H1B-GC
09-26 08:50 AM
Also,as America becomes more socialistic the power of lobbying from companies becomes even more less appealing to the Politicians. Our interests had to be protected by ourselves.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html
NKR
09-26 09:31 AM
Chandu, you have brought up an interesting topic, but frankly speaking I do not expect anything to change, for a majority of us if at all anything changes it is going to be for the worse, sorry to sound pessimistic but looking at the unfair processing of cases in the last couple of months, I have lost faith in the system�
unitednations
07-17 12:39 PM
Unitednations,
Could you provide me your contact info so that we can talk / email in person.
My email id is jeyvee72@hotmail.com.
Thanks
Tom
Tom; I'm sorry but I used to have my contact info on immigration.com and I enjoyed talking to people at one point. However; it got to be too much to discuss with people (close to 100 phone calls per day).
I prefer if you keep it to the boards for everyone elses benefit.
Could you provide me your contact info so that we can talk / email in person.
My email id is jeyvee72@hotmail.com.
Thanks
Tom
Tom; I'm sorry but I used to have my contact info on immigration.com and I enjoyed talking to people at one point. However; it got to be too much to discuss with people (close to 100 phone calls per day).
I prefer if you keep it to the boards for everyone elses benefit.
No comments:
Post a Comment