baala9
08-06 10:43 AM
Okay lets take your example. A & B are graduates with a Bachelors degree (A is a Mechanical and B is Computer Science). A decides to pursue higher study in Mechanical field and B takes up a Software job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school. A joins a software company (His Masters in Mechanical is worth nothing now). EB2 is filed for A just because he has a Masters, B is also eligible for EB2 by that time. Why can't B get a earlier PD? Atleast B got relevant industry experience. How come A is superior than B?
Also why should EB2's get the spillover visas from EB1? Do they have a Ph.D? Why can't they allocate spillover visas from EB1 equally between EB2 and EB3?
In that case A will be eligible only for a EB3 based on the Job requirement.( Since eligibility is based on the Job requirement and not the person's qualification)
Also why should EB2's get the spillover visas from EB1? Do they have a Ph.D? Why can't they allocate spillover visas from EB1 equally between EB2 and EB3?
In that case A will be eligible only for a EB3 based on the Job requirement.( Since eligibility is based on the Job requirement and not the person's qualification)
wallpaper dresses Katrina Kaif Hot Wallpapers wallpaper katrina kaif hot.
vdlrao
07-14 12:49 PM
Please find out the visa numbers allotment for EB1, EB2 and EB3 till now. Till now there is about 100k visa numbers allotment for EB3 alomost every year due to the vertical fallout. From now on there would be around 100K allotment in EB2 due to the change to Horizontal Fall out of visa numbers. Out of these 100k EB2 visa numbers, India will get greatest share of around 50k + visas. Please see the below.
Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007
Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697
Second: advanced degrees or exceptional ability 14,362--8,557-- 20,255-- 42,550-- 44,316-- 15,406-- 32,534 --42,597-- 21,911-- 44,162
Third: Skilled workers 34,282 --27,920--49,589--85,847-- 88,002-- 46,415-- 85,969-- 129,070--89,922-- 85,030
Fourth: Special immigrants 6,570-- 5,072-- 9,014-- 8,442-- 7,186-- 5,389-- 5,407-- 10,133-- 9,539-- 5,481
Fifth: (investors) 824-- 285-- 218-- 191-- 142-- 64-- 129-- 346-- 749-- 806
See the link below for reference:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...7/table06d.xls
Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007
Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697
Second: advanced degrees or exceptional ability 14,362--8,557-- 20,255-- 42,550-- 44,316-- 15,406-- 32,534 --42,597-- 21,911-- 44,162
Third: Skilled workers 34,282 --27,920--49,589--85,847-- 88,002-- 46,415-- 85,969-- 129,070--89,922-- 85,030
Fourth: Special immigrants 6,570-- 5,072-- 9,014-- 8,442-- 7,186-- 5,389-- 5,407-- 10,133-- 9,539-- 5,481
Fifth: (investors) 824-- 285-- 218-- 191-- 142-- 64-- 129-- 346-- 749-- 806
See the link below for reference:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...7/table06d.xls
Macaca
01-15 08:35 PM
Not as clear this year (http://thehill.com/editorials/not-as-clear-this-year-2008-01-15.html) The Hill Editorial, 01/15/08
After Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, their agenda for 2007 was unmistakable. It would start with taking steps to try to end the war in Iraq as well as tackling the items on their �Six in �06� campaign pledge.
But the plan for the second session of the 110th Congress is unclear. The economy is expected to play a leading role on Capitol Hill this year, while Iraq will take more of a back seat. Democrats are well aware that they do not have the votes to make significant changes to Iraq policy and believe they can attract enough support to enact some sort of an economic stimulus package.
Yet there is much uncertainty in what will be in that bill, especially with a White House that will undoubtedly want something different.
Democrats have made some progress on their Six in �06 agenda, enacting bills on lobbying reform, student loans and the minimum wage. However, stem cell and Medicare prescription drug negotiation legislation has been and will continue to be blocked by President Bush�s veto power. Those bills, Democrats predict, will be made law in 2009, when they hope to have control of the executive and legislative branches.
There is no shortage of bills to address in coming months, some of which were not completed last year, such as the farm measure, patent reform and reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Democratic appropriators, meanwhile, are expected to have more time to focus on their spending bills earlier this year because they will not be burdened by the need to finish leftover budget measures from the previous Republican regime. Still, losing the spending showdown with Bush in December limits their leverage in 2008.
In order to build on their majority, Democrats must combat GOP claims that this is a do-nothing Congress. They are expected to discuss that at an upcoming retreat, as well as fine-tune what their 2008 agenda will be.
It is unlikely that the tensions between House and Senate Democrats, which have flared in recent months, will continue to mount. A cohesive message in 2008, as in all election years, is vital to winning in November.
Republicans in Washington privately acknowledge that Democrats are likely to control both houses of Congress next year. But the dismally low approval ratings for Congress have gotten the attention of Democratic leaders, who know they must produce in 2008.
If things go right for Democrats this year, they will be talking about bold ideas in 2009 with a Democrat in the White House and at least a handful of new Democratic senators. But there are many hurdles for them to clear to get to that point.
After Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, their agenda for 2007 was unmistakable. It would start with taking steps to try to end the war in Iraq as well as tackling the items on their �Six in �06� campaign pledge.
But the plan for the second session of the 110th Congress is unclear. The economy is expected to play a leading role on Capitol Hill this year, while Iraq will take more of a back seat. Democrats are well aware that they do not have the votes to make significant changes to Iraq policy and believe they can attract enough support to enact some sort of an economic stimulus package.
Yet there is much uncertainty in what will be in that bill, especially with a White House that will undoubtedly want something different.
Democrats have made some progress on their Six in �06 agenda, enacting bills on lobbying reform, student loans and the minimum wage. However, stem cell and Medicare prescription drug negotiation legislation has been and will continue to be blocked by President Bush�s veto power. Those bills, Democrats predict, will be made law in 2009, when they hope to have control of the executive and legislative branches.
There is no shortage of bills to address in coming months, some of which were not completed last year, such as the farm measure, patent reform and reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Democratic appropriators, meanwhile, are expected to have more time to focus on their spending bills earlier this year because they will not be burdened by the need to finish leftover budget measures from the previous Republican regime. Still, losing the spending showdown with Bush in December limits their leverage in 2008.
In order to build on their majority, Democrats must combat GOP claims that this is a do-nothing Congress. They are expected to discuss that at an upcoming retreat, as well as fine-tune what their 2008 agenda will be.
It is unlikely that the tensions between House and Senate Democrats, which have flared in recent months, will continue to mount. A cohesive message in 2008, as in all election years, is vital to winning in November.
Republicans in Washington privately acknowledge that Democrats are likely to control both houses of Congress next year. But the dismally low approval ratings for Congress have gotten the attention of Democratic leaders, who know they must produce in 2008.
If things go right for Democrats this year, they will be talking about bold ideas in 2009 with a Democrat in the White House and at least a handful of new Democratic senators. But there are many hurdles for them to clear to get to that point.
2011 to the Heartland -
gimme_GC2006
03-25 04:08 PM
I do not understand either...OP says he/she does not want to spend a grand (not sure if it costs that much) in attorney fees while he is willing to spend time/money trying to immigrate to Alberta. Taking a fatalistic approach and hoping for the best seems to be the idea. Again good luck to OP.
lol...you are right..
but dont know... I am going by hunch..I hope not to regret..:)
lol...you are right..
but dont know... I am going by hunch..I hope not to regret..:)
more...
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
gomirage
06-05 08:30 PM
Do not take that snipet out of context.. Innovation, research and development, that you have talked about was in the past. Do you know that Boeing has a R & D Lab in bangalore? So does many globals.. They are already doing modelling and simulation at those centers :). When they made it difficult for innovators to get here.. jobs left US to go to innovators.. .Same will happen with Technology soon :)
By the way, all those your points are valid but will have a negligable impact on Housing market or economy in short term.. atleast until next cycle.. Unless US reform immigration policies for a 21st century knowledge revolution.. create well paid jobs for best and brightest in the world right here.. who can earn, spend and not borrow.. (EB category) ... Housing problem will also resolved... But US is lagging way behind. this is my opinion as Obama Administration has not thought so far beyond providing food coupons, housing rescue and medicare... Based on what is on the card, there will be lot of blue collar folks... nothing on innovation and technology and more Family based immigrants on welfare and low paid jobs... Do you still think, thing of past holds good now?
Well said.
By the way, all those your points are valid but will have a negligable impact on Housing market or economy in short term.. atleast until next cycle.. Unless US reform immigration policies for a 21st century knowledge revolution.. create well paid jobs for best and brightest in the world right here.. who can earn, spend and not borrow.. (EB category) ... Housing problem will also resolved... But US is lagging way behind. this is my opinion as Obama Administration has not thought so far beyond providing food coupons, housing rescue and medicare... Based on what is on the card, there will be lot of blue collar folks... nothing on innovation and technology and more Family based immigrants on welfare and low paid jobs... Do you still think, thing of past holds good now?
Well said.
more...
nojoke
04-14 03:02 PM
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.
No one is scaring away others from buying a house. We are all pointing to the risk of buying a house at this time, which you are already agreeing. :)
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.
No one is scaring away others from buying a house. We are all pointing to the risk of buying a house at this time, which you are already agreeing. :)
2010 wallpaper Russia/Ex-Soviet
gclabor07
08-05 11:48 AM
Folks,
Here are my thoughts on this based on my personal experience.
USCIS should allow porting of dates not just based on approved I-140, but also based on approved LC.
I applied in EB3 category back in 2003. My labor was stuck in BEC and my career wasn't progressing. So I decided to switch my employers and start the process all over again. Just before I left my previous LC was approved. I wish that process should have allowed me to port the PD of my first labor because PD is decided when you file LC and not when you file I-140. So right now I've EB2 with 2007 PD. I missed the July 07 bus as well.
Was this fair? perhaps not. Am I having heartburn, not really. I'm happy that I made the switch and moved to the new employer with a better career path.
Here are my thoughts on this based on my personal experience.
USCIS should allow porting of dates not just based on approved I-140, but also based on approved LC.
I applied in EB3 category back in 2003. My labor was stuck in BEC and my career wasn't progressing. So I decided to switch my employers and start the process all over again. Just before I left my previous LC was approved. I wish that process should have allowed me to port the PD of my first labor because PD is decided when you file LC and not when you file I-140. So right now I've EB2 with 2007 PD. I missed the July 07 bus as well.
Was this fair? perhaps not. Am I having heartburn, not really. I'm happy that I made the switch and moved to the new employer with a better career path.
more...
NKR
09-26 09:34 AM
Hello there,
highly skilled immigrants have a buying power
Thanks
Yes, that is why they have allowed you to keep renewing your H1s and/or EADs so that you can keep buying. They will not give you GC soon
highly skilled immigrants have a buying power
Thanks
Yes, that is why they have allowed you to keep renewing your H1s and/or EADs so that you can keep buying. They will not give you GC soon
hair Paul for iPad Wallpaper
ItIsNotFunny
12-17 03:11 PM
Looks like his initial intentions were not bad but discussion went on wrong direction.
Shanti! Shanti!
Marphad,
In the recent past, I have expressed my views about the same subject on this forum. I was very angry with what happened in Mumbai. The desire to fix the wrong has not gone away, but now that I look back, I regret some of the things I said at that time. My comments did not do any good and some of the coments offend few others on this forum. Those who felt offended by my comments are just as entitled to these forums as I am. I am not trying to be politically correct, just trying to say that it doesn't serves any purpose to dicsuss this issue on IV fourms.
Branding all people from a specific faith doesn't help in anyways. For too long men have fought because of religion and each such time was avoidable.
I do have a suggestion. To get some perspective, I suggest you watch the bollywood movie "New York", although I am not a big fan of bollywood movies.
Peace.
.
Shanti! Shanti!
Marphad,
In the recent past, I have expressed my views about the same subject on this forum. I was very angry with what happened in Mumbai. The desire to fix the wrong has not gone away, but now that I look back, I regret some of the things I said at that time. My comments did not do any good and some of the coments offend few others on this forum. Those who felt offended by my comments are just as entitled to these forums as I am. I am not trying to be politically correct, just trying to say that it doesn't serves any purpose to dicsuss this issue on IV fourms.
Branding all people from a specific faith doesn't help in anyways. For too long men have fought because of religion and each such time was avoidable.
I do have a suggestion. To get some perspective, I suggest you watch the bollywood movie "New York", although I am not a big fan of bollywood movies.
Peace.
.
more...
sledge_hammer
06-26 04:06 PM
Have you accounted for the increase in rent (not rent controlled) every year? Mortgage on the other hand is fixed for 30 years!
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
hot Pat Fischer Heartland Wall
kak1978
06-05 10:46 AM
http://seattlebubble.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/home-price-to-rent_2009-01.png
Althought this is just for seattle area, this trend is more or less the same nationwide.
According to this graph we need to wait out atleast one more year for the Rent - to- Price ratio to come down to the historical averages. But you get the Federal first -time home owner credit of $8000 (more in CA) only if you buy before the end of this year. So in my opinion, a good time to buy a house is in the month of december this year, if not the best time to buy. Now this is with an assumsion that mortgage rates don't rise substantially.
Althought this is just for seattle area, this trend is more or less the same nationwide.
According to this graph we need to wait out atleast one more year for the Rent - to- Price ratio to come down to the historical averages. But you get the Federal first -time home owner credit of $8000 (more in CA) only if you buy before the end of this year. So in my opinion, a good time to buy a house is in the month of december this year, if not the best time to buy. Now this is with an assumsion that mortgage rates don't rise substantially.
more...
house Heartland Mgf Grp
jvordar
08-03 12:36 AM
I refer back to my earlier posting where I said I just read the memos and the law and thought this stuff was pretty simple. USCIS quite often goes above and beyond (tax returns rfe's, pictures of company inside/outside).
I'll give you some examples of what they have done of which I have intimate knowledge of:
1) Questioned company on I-140 why they had more 140's pending/approved then the number of people on payroll. Asked for all 140 info., h1, L1 and even the people who got employment base greencard and asked company to justify where they are
2) Department of state for visa stamping; if they don't trust client letter; they refer the case to department of state fraud unit in Kentucky. They will then contact signer of letter and HR of company to verify that person signed the letter
3) Department of labor is on a real war path of checking companies compliance with h-1b based on referrals made by department of state. I can tell you that there is no way any company who is h-1b dependent can be 100% compliant with h-1b. Patni got fined $3.5 million for violations.
4) Department of labor made a home visit to an HR person who was no longer working with the company to ask and verify her signatue on labor applications in a fast processing state when they weren't registered to do business there
5) Department of labor verifying that people were paid the greencard wage upon greencard approval (this was in conjunction with h-1b investigation). I can tell you that some states have very high eb2 wages and people aren't even close to the labor number; companies do it anyways to keep you happy but do they run that number once you do get the greencard?
6) h-1b rfe's from california service center. when quota finished in one day; there was some rumors from california service center that they would be treating h-1b transfers/quota cases very harshly in that companies were engaging in speculative employment. These days if you are involved in software and you file an h-1b transfer or even extension with california service center; you have a very good chance of getting a four page rfe. One of the things they have started to ask for is a table of people whom h-1b's have been filed for. Table has to list name, social security number, receipt number, date of birth, joining date, termination date, no show, future joining date. California service center then intertwines this information with company unemployment compensation reports. I have actually seen 3 recent denials where USCIS examined the unemployment compensation reports and looked at people who may have been paid a lower wage and pulled those people's h-1b files and denied the present case saying they can't trust the company to comply with the h-1b, lca.
----------------------------------------------------------
These days; uscis/dol/dos really means business. I refer you to earlier posting of how evertime a company files a case; it gives uscis a chance to go through entire immigration history of a company. They have the resources and tools.
ok now i'm really confused between AC21 and future employment debate....
AC21 can be used after 6 months of 485 filing to change the job but then once u get GC you have to work for the original company that filed your 485 for few months?? so for e.g. if i change my job after lets say 1 year of 485 filing and lets say my 485 is approved after 3 years so now do i have to quit my new job and go back to my old employer to work for few months to get my gc? am i understanding this correct? i think i'm not... can you please clarify?? thnx
I'll give you some examples of what they have done of which I have intimate knowledge of:
1) Questioned company on I-140 why they had more 140's pending/approved then the number of people on payroll. Asked for all 140 info., h1, L1 and even the people who got employment base greencard and asked company to justify where they are
2) Department of state for visa stamping; if they don't trust client letter; they refer the case to department of state fraud unit in Kentucky. They will then contact signer of letter and HR of company to verify that person signed the letter
3) Department of labor is on a real war path of checking companies compliance with h-1b based on referrals made by department of state. I can tell you that there is no way any company who is h-1b dependent can be 100% compliant with h-1b. Patni got fined $3.5 million for violations.
4) Department of labor made a home visit to an HR person who was no longer working with the company to ask and verify her signatue on labor applications in a fast processing state when they weren't registered to do business there
5) Department of labor verifying that people were paid the greencard wage upon greencard approval (this was in conjunction with h-1b investigation). I can tell you that some states have very high eb2 wages and people aren't even close to the labor number; companies do it anyways to keep you happy but do they run that number once you do get the greencard?
6) h-1b rfe's from california service center. when quota finished in one day; there was some rumors from california service center that they would be treating h-1b transfers/quota cases very harshly in that companies were engaging in speculative employment. These days if you are involved in software and you file an h-1b transfer or even extension with california service center; you have a very good chance of getting a four page rfe. One of the things they have started to ask for is a table of people whom h-1b's have been filed for. Table has to list name, social security number, receipt number, date of birth, joining date, termination date, no show, future joining date. California service center then intertwines this information with company unemployment compensation reports. I have actually seen 3 recent denials where USCIS examined the unemployment compensation reports and looked at people who may have been paid a lower wage and pulled those people's h-1b files and denied the present case saying they can't trust the company to comply with the h-1b, lca.
----------------------------------------------------------
These days; uscis/dol/dos really means business. I refer you to earlier posting of how evertime a company files a case; it gives uscis a chance to go through entire immigration history of a company. They have the resources and tools.
ok now i'm really confused between AC21 and future employment debate....
AC21 can be used after 6 months of 485 filing to change the job but then once u get GC you have to work for the original company that filed your 485 for few months?? so for e.g. if i change my job after lets say 1 year of 485 filing and lets say my 485 is approved after 3 years so now do i have to quit my new job and go back to my old employer to work for few months to get my gc? am i understanding this correct? i think i'm not... can you please clarify?? thnx
tattoo Dark Horse - Heartland
unitednations
03-26 08:41 PM
So then lets take an example
1. Company Files H1b from NJ
2. Consultant gets a job in NY or OH or xyz state. Employer files 'amend location' each time. The work and keep on moving like that
3. Time comes up for renewal of H1, if the employer gives the current client's contract in a different location, it will definitely trigger USICS to possibly deny the extension? Since the original H1 petition did not mention this place or since they filed amend its ok?
4. When they file for amend, do they need to give a contract/client letter to justify the amend? If yes then will it trigger an RFE?
According to you anything is possible with USCIS these days.
My original request still stays. I want some advise, I will definitely use an attorney but wanted your opinion on it..
-cheers
kris
Every time you amend the petition; it technically would be another h-1b; when you come up for extension (assuming when you amend the petitoin that you are not requesting for more time); you would be extending the latest h-1b that has been approved. You would have been complying with the terms and conditions of that particular h-1b so you shouldn't have any issues.
California service center when adjudicating person B's H-1b asks for payroll reports of all employees. They will cross reference the h-1b's filed for other employees from the list and if they see even one person who has been paid lower then what their h-1b was filed for then they will deny person b's h-1b. California service center is relying on a case precedent that if a petitioner has not complied with a previous petition (even if it is a different persons petition) then they can't rely on their certification in the instant petition and deny it. Funny thing is that when I looked up that case precedent that they continually site; it is a marriage base case when a person tried to file a second petition. Another example of uscis doing what it wants to do.
Now; I think everyone will start to understand why so many companies are cancelling h-1b's; revoking h-1b's for people on bench and generally not filing many h-1b's in this year quota or filing h-1b transfers for people without projects. I wans't too vocal when some members on the forums were trying to gather support for lifting country quotas; contacting media; etc., because I was well aware of what was going on behind the scenes and we are definitely in a defensive mode right now.
1. Company Files H1b from NJ
2. Consultant gets a job in NY or OH or xyz state. Employer files 'amend location' each time. The work and keep on moving like that
3. Time comes up for renewal of H1, if the employer gives the current client's contract in a different location, it will definitely trigger USICS to possibly deny the extension? Since the original H1 petition did not mention this place or since they filed amend its ok?
4. When they file for amend, do they need to give a contract/client letter to justify the amend? If yes then will it trigger an RFE?
According to you anything is possible with USCIS these days.
My original request still stays. I want some advise, I will definitely use an attorney but wanted your opinion on it..
-cheers
kris
Every time you amend the petition; it technically would be another h-1b; when you come up for extension (assuming when you amend the petitoin that you are not requesting for more time); you would be extending the latest h-1b that has been approved. You would have been complying with the terms and conditions of that particular h-1b so you shouldn't have any issues.
California service center when adjudicating person B's H-1b asks for payroll reports of all employees. They will cross reference the h-1b's filed for other employees from the list and if they see even one person who has been paid lower then what their h-1b was filed for then they will deny person b's h-1b. California service center is relying on a case precedent that if a petitioner has not complied with a previous petition (even if it is a different persons petition) then they can't rely on their certification in the instant petition and deny it. Funny thing is that when I looked up that case precedent that they continually site; it is a marriage base case when a person tried to file a second petition. Another example of uscis doing what it wants to do.
Now; I think everyone will start to understand why so many companies are cancelling h-1b's; revoking h-1b's for people on bench and generally not filing many h-1b's in this year quota or filing h-1b transfers for people without projects. I wans't too vocal when some members on the forums were trying to gather support for lifting country quotas; contacting media; etc., because I was well aware of what was going on behind the scenes and we are definitely in a defensive mode right now.
more...
pictures hairstyles katrina kaif hot wallpapers wallpaper katrina kaif hot.
chintu25
08-06 12:59 PM
Other than the July 07 USCIS debacle reversal thread, this is the best thread in IV so far.
This is the chill pill for all of us ....................
This is the chill pill for all of us ....................
dresses wallpapers
Macaca
12-27 08:16 PM
How Republicans prevailed on the Hill (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/531oekhp.asp) By Whitney Blake | The Weekly Standard, 12/27/2007
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
more...
makeup the Heartland Minneapolis,
satishku_2000
05-16 05:39 PM
Infact pro immigrants and Corporations are arguing that shortage of skills and they are not displacing US workers. If that is true why cannot they accept the conditions that they will not displace US workers. If you accept that you do not mind replacing some american workers also then all of your points are valid. Then you can lobby for unlimited H1b and Unlimited greencards. You will never get American people support for that. But we all are lobbying based on the shortage of skills. So we should be ready to reduce H1b when demand goes down or accept the conditions for non displacement of US workers. Right now demand is more so US will absorb even 200K H1bs. But you need to look what happened between 2000 to 2003. So many layoffs. Part of reason was economy but other part was due to H1b and outsourcing
I will accept that 25 year old H1b from India can work 15 to 18 hours a day but same kind of productivity cannot get with 40 year old person with family of 2 kids whether Indian or american. Is it right to replace those person with 25 year old person. If that is the case then you will be replaced by youger H1b person in future.
My view is clear. There should be H1b numbers based on demand and supply. If they cannot come with correct numbers then restriction of non displacement of US workers should be there.
Why someone whose permanent labor certificate is approved should have to go thru the process of adertising when his or her H1 is up for renewal? Can you please explain me what is the intent of permanent labor certificate as opposed to LCA in H1?
I will accept that 25 year old H1b from India can work 15 to 18 hours a day but same kind of productivity cannot get with 40 year old person with family of 2 kids whether Indian or american. Is it right to replace those person with 25 year old person. If that is the case then you will be replaced by youger H1b person in future.
My view is clear. There should be H1b numbers based on demand and supply. If they cannot come with correct numbers then restriction of non displacement of US workers should be there.
Why someone whose permanent labor certificate is approved should have to go thru the process of adertising when his or her H1 is up for renewal? Can you please explain me what is the intent of permanent labor certificate as opposed to LCA in H1?
girlfriend extreme wallpaper envy as
vdixit
03-26 03:15 PM
I am still confused about the whole GC issue in buying and selling a home. Why is GC an issue in owing property or even taking overseas vacations? I have done both with absolutely no issues-caribbeans, europe, India. I have owned a home, and then decided to change jobs-move to a different city and sell my house. Heck I sold my house when I was on vacation in India. I did everything by phone and fax, and this is not some few years ago, this is 2 months ago.
I totally agree with the fact that location and the condition of the house being the key factors. Maybe the fact that I have been here for a few years makes me resident alien for tax purposes helped me? I am not entirely sure.
Folks mentioned that what if you lose your job, and have to leave the country etc. But like I mentioned a house can be sold from abroad. And if you have a GC and you lose ur job, how will you make mortgage payments etc. So some problems will stay the same.
Any thoughts/comments on my dilema?
Perhaps someone can elaborate on why GC is a factor?
Cheers.
I totally agree with the fact that location and the condition of the house being the key factors. Maybe the fact that I have been here for a few years makes me resident alien for tax purposes helped me? I am not entirely sure.
Folks mentioned that what if you lose your job, and have to leave the country etc. But like I mentioned a house can be sold from abroad. And if you have a GC and you lose ur job, how will you make mortgage payments etc. So some problems will stay the same.
Any thoughts/comments on my dilema?
Perhaps someone can elaborate on why GC is a factor?
Cheers.
hairstyles Genre : Rock, heartland rock,
akred
04-06 08:51 PM
This bill seems to require a labor certification like process for every H1B extension. All of us who have gone through labor certification know how painful the initial data collection is when it comes to proving unavailability of US workers. How many employers will want to or be able to get a labor certification like process done for every H1 extension?
django.stone
06-26 07:18 PM
i completely agree with you. i follow exactly the same logic by puddonhead and in fact i place a high $ value on flexibility (X) and very low $ on lost savings (Y), as i am very disciplined in saving the extra income which makes it even harder for rent to exceed interest + tax + insurance + hoa + maintenance fees. so i am on this forum to get my GC and escape the hell out of bay area to a place where normal people can lead a happy life
ns33
07-13 12:20 AM
Great Job - Thanks for taking initiative... everyone please pitch in.
No comments:
Post a Comment