Ramba
01-29 10:06 PM
Interesting to watch this video. How CNN and Lou is propagating false information and not airing how H1B system works. They think viewers are idiot. It may be true that USCIS might have approved more than mandated numbers. It does not matter. Even they can approve 1 million H1B petition. But everyone has forget one thing. One must verify how many actual new H1B visas are issued by the consulates (DOS) based on approved petitions and how many adjusted to H1B status from other non-immigration status in US. There are so many H1B visas denied by the consulates. CNN do not air that.
Furthermore, there are so many cases in which more than 1 employer might have applied H1B visa for same person. It is legal. Finally the guy come to US thro one employer. Other approved petions are wasted in this case. They can not do labor subsitution in H1B like in GC.
CNN is smartly hiding the actual facts.
Furthermore, there are so many cases in which more than 1 employer might have applied H1B visa for same person. It is legal. Finally the guy come to US thro one employer. Other approved petions are wasted in this case. They can not do labor subsitution in H1B like in GC.
CNN is smartly hiding the actual facts.
wallpaper gold nugget specimen gold rush
GCapplicant
07-13 11:47 AM
Here is my 2 cents worth...
What EB3 I wants to accomplish here is to emphasize that we are retrogressed beyond logic, limits and reason.
What we could probably do is, write a letter describing our plight and also mention in the letter, the IV effort that is underway. By doing this, we can emphasize our situation and at the same time substantiate IV's effort.
We can come up with agreeable facts that should go in the letter that explains EB3 I plight. IV core can help with this and also proof read and approve final version of the doc. We should stress on date being stuck in 2001. And AC21 not giving a whole lot flexibility to change jobs even with EAD. Like a programmer with 7 years of experience would be eligible to become a PM (if the person has acquired right skills/knowledge/experience) but I am not sure if AC21 allows a person to do that.
Besides, EAD is not GC. If not, let them announce EAD as temp GC - meaning issuing EAD means GC is approved but the card is not issued owing to number availability - Makes sense? In other words, once EAD is issued the person's GC should not be disapproved. The clock for citizenship should start with I140 approval. That way the applicant will have the peace of mind! And then let DOS/USCIS issue GC at their own pace!!
I agree with that...spillover should have a releif to highly retrogressed also.Common 2001 EB3 is still hanging when will we get our solution.EAD is not a GC.This not relief.I understand unity is required here ,but how aboutEB3
.Even we need required justice.
Atleast we can address the problem.
What EB3 I wants to accomplish here is to emphasize that we are retrogressed beyond logic, limits and reason.
What we could probably do is, write a letter describing our plight and also mention in the letter, the IV effort that is underway. By doing this, we can emphasize our situation and at the same time substantiate IV's effort.
We can come up with agreeable facts that should go in the letter that explains EB3 I plight. IV core can help with this and also proof read and approve final version of the doc. We should stress on date being stuck in 2001. And AC21 not giving a whole lot flexibility to change jobs even with EAD. Like a programmer with 7 years of experience would be eligible to become a PM (if the person has acquired right skills/knowledge/experience) but I am not sure if AC21 allows a person to do that.
Besides, EAD is not GC. If not, let them announce EAD as temp GC - meaning issuing EAD means GC is approved but the card is not issued owing to number availability - Makes sense? In other words, once EAD is issued the person's GC should not be disapproved. The clock for citizenship should start with I140 approval. That way the applicant will have the peace of mind! And then let DOS/USCIS issue GC at their own pace!!
I agree with that...spillover should have a releif to highly retrogressed also.Common 2001 EB3 is still hanging when will we get our solution.EAD is not a GC.This not relief.I understand unity is required here ,but how aboutEB3
.Even we need required justice.
Atleast we can address the problem.
shsk
07-13 01:42 AM
I am in for it, a very great initiative.
But would request to check with IV first on this
But would request to check with IV first on this
2011 dresses California Gold Rush
logiclife
06-01 06:09 PM
The culture of rant, the tendency of being angry at all times has landed success to many broadcast journalists, authors and politicians.
On the right:
Rush Limbaugh.
Bill O Reilly.
Sean Hannity.
Ann Coulter(not a journalist but close).
On the left:
Howard Dean.
Al Sharpton.
It seems that the more angry you are, the more successful you are. What surprises me is the Republicans control the congress and the white house and still, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs etc. are angry at all times. They are angry if Bill Clinton is President. They are angry if George Bush is president. They are angry when Democrats win, they are angry even if republicans win. They are just angry and they want everyone else to be angry. Probably, there is a secret key to ratings success written somewhere in a secret book in a secret library that these guys have read. And that books says "Make thy audience mad at someone and thou shalt see success in thy Neilson ratings".
On the right:
Rush Limbaugh.
Bill O Reilly.
Sean Hannity.
Ann Coulter(not a journalist but close).
On the left:
Howard Dean.
Al Sharpton.
It seems that the more angry you are, the more successful you are. What surprises me is the Republicans control the congress and the white house and still, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs etc. are angry at all times. They are angry if Bill Clinton is President. They are angry if George Bush is president. They are angry when Democrats win, they are angry even if republicans win. They are just angry and they want everyone else to be angry. Probably, there is a secret key to ratings success written somewhere in a secret book in a secret library that these guys have read. And that books says "Make thy audience mad at someone and thou shalt see success in thy Neilson ratings".
more...
Macaca
03-19 01:23 PM
Lobbying in a Web World (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801138.html)
Speaking of doing better on the Hill, sign up now for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's April 3 lobbying workshop: "Getting Heard on Capitol Hill." It's part of a four-workshop series, "Winning in a Web World; Online Strategies for Grass-Roots Advocacy." (If you don't yet have grass roots, you can find out how to create them. )
The three panels on April 3 include one about using the Internet and another on "activating the grass roots." There's also a Q&A session on how lobbying reforms and new Federal Election Commission laws might affect your online efforts.
This being the Chamber of Commerce, the panelists are weighted toward the conservative end: former Bush aide Tucker Eskew, who had the spectacular title of White House director of global communications, and Stephen Hoersting, former general counsel at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. But there's also Winnie Stachelberg, former political director of the Human Rights Campaign who's now at the Center for American Progress, and some media folks and academics.
Speaking of doing better on the Hill, sign up now for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's April 3 lobbying workshop: "Getting Heard on Capitol Hill." It's part of a four-workshop series, "Winning in a Web World; Online Strategies for Grass-Roots Advocacy." (If you don't yet have grass roots, you can find out how to create them. )
The three panels on April 3 include one about using the Internet and another on "activating the grass roots." There's also a Q&A session on how lobbying reforms and new Federal Election Commission laws might affect your online efforts.
This being the Chamber of Commerce, the panelists are weighted toward the conservative end: former Bush aide Tucker Eskew, who had the spectacular title of White House director of global communications, and Stephen Hoersting, former general counsel at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. But there's also Winnie Stachelberg, former political director of the Human Rights Campaign who's now at the Center for American Progress, and some media folks and academics.
xyzgc
12-17 11:34 PM
Someone gave me red in extremely bad language on my mother that I can not even copy and paste here. This is really bad. It you have guts come and talk to me. Don't write bad words on my back.
I am not concerned about red, the language was worse than uncultured.
I am really upset with the language. Admins can read the comment if they wish.
People write bad words all the time.
What to do? Its like a flu shot. You feel feverish for a while and then you are immune.
I am not concerned about red, the language was worse than uncultured.
I am really upset with the language. Admins can read the comment if they wish.
People write bad words all the time.
What to do? Its like a flu shot. You feel feverish for a while and then you are immune.
more...
NKR
08-05 04:34 PM
Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.
Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.
2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.
If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
No, I will not waste time on giving you a red, looks like you are someone who wants to stoke more fire. Your new PD with only this post shows your true colors (red or green or whatever you call it)
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.
Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.
2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.
If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
No, I will not waste time on giving you a red, looks like you are someone who wants to stoke more fire. Your new PD with only this post shows your true colors (red or green or whatever you call it)
2010 Goldminers Gold Rush Miners
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
more...
nojoke
05-03 02:33 AM
NAR has been constantly changing their prediction. They predicted that we will be having growth in the later part of this year. Now they changed their tune. It is now 24% down. Nextmonth they will say 35% down. NAR is a joke
http://lansner.freedomblogging.com/2008/05/02/realtors-forecast-24-price-drop-for-california-houses/
http://lansner.freedomblogging.com/2008/05/02/realtors-forecast-24-price-drop-for-california-houses/
hair eaten by Gold Rush miners
rajuseattle
07-15 01:58 AM
Rajuram,
The petition you are asking us to sign doesnt have legal standings. It doesnt have any strong argument to change USCIS's interpretation of allocating the spill over VISA numbers.
Instead we should all focus our enrgy in getting Rep Lofgren's bill for recapturing the wasted VISA numbers.
IV has launched the initiative by sending the Petition/letter to your local US congress reps and senators.
IV petition is urging US congress and senate to consider Rep Lofgren's imigration relief bills for the legal immigrants, which will recapture the wasted VISA numbers and they are in the range of about 200,000, this will be good to retrogressed countries. Apart from IV their are other pro legal immigrant lobbiests who are working hard to get these pro legal immigration relief bills passed this year, but due to slowing economy anything US congress wants to do for immigration relief comes under scrutiny by anti-immigration forces and they try to kill these relief bills, on the other hand their are some groups in US congress and senate who wants the amnesty for all illegal immigrants and they are strongly opposing any kind of relief just to legal immigrants.
Its a long battle ahead of us, and hope staying together and working with IV will help us rather than having war of words between EB-3 I and EB-2 I.
Current letter writen by pani is inappropriate and it doesnt make our case strong.
For Pani too, I am perosnally not against him, we all are frustrated with this GC situation, but unless USCIS gets more VISA numbers from congress, they can not do anything.
I guess illegal immigrant lobby and some of the anti immigrant forces in Washington DC are strong enough and at this time they are influencing the law makers to not pass any pro legal immgrant relief.
Our only hope is if IV succeed in getting some relief from US congress...or at some point the nurses from india and phillipines stop consuming the EB-3 quota. Remember when we were all stuck in the state employment agencies and DOL backlog centres, they were allowed to file I-140 without labor certifications and they were the major beneficary for some of the recaptured VISA numbers and the July 2007 VB fiasco when USCIS approved some unprecedented EB-3 India VISA numbers.
The petition you are asking us to sign doesnt have legal standings. It doesnt have any strong argument to change USCIS's interpretation of allocating the spill over VISA numbers.
Instead we should all focus our enrgy in getting Rep Lofgren's bill for recapturing the wasted VISA numbers.
IV has launched the initiative by sending the Petition/letter to your local US congress reps and senators.
IV petition is urging US congress and senate to consider Rep Lofgren's imigration relief bills for the legal immigrants, which will recapture the wasted VISA numbers and they are in the range of about 200,000, this will be good to retrogressed countries. Apart from IV their are other pro legal immigrant lobbiests who are working hard to get these pro legal immigration relief bills passed this year, but due to slowing economy anything US congress wants to do for immigration relief comes under scrutiny by anti-immigration forces and they try to kill these relief bills, on the other hand their are some groups in US congress and senate who wants the amnesty for all illegal immigrants and they are strongly opposing any kind of relief just to legal immigrants.
Its a long battle ahead of us, and hope staying together and working with IV will help us rather than having war of words between EB-3 I and EB-2 I.
Current letter writen by pani is inappropriate and it doesnt make our case strong.
For Pani too, I am perosnally not against him, we all are frustrated with this GC situation, but unless USCIS gets more VISA numbers from congress, they can not do anything.
I guess illegal immigrant lobby and some of the anti immigrant forces in Washington DC are strong enough and at this time they are influencing the law makers to not pass any pro legal immgrant relief.
Our only hope is if IV succeed in getting some relief from US congress...or at some point the nurses from india and phillipines stop consuming the EB-3 quota. Remember when we were all stuck in the state employment agencies and DOL backlog centres, they were allowed to file I-140 without labor certifications and they were the major beneficary for some of the recaptured VISA numbers and the July 2007 VB fiasco when USCIS approved some unprecedented EB-3 India VISA numbers.
more...
h1techSlave
04-07 04:43 PM
My arguments apply to people with a single home to worry about. People who want to move from apartment into a house of their own.
Managing a rental property (when you have more than one house, you have to rent the other houses), is a totally different ball game. I have no personal experience with that field, but am actively considering it. It doesn't cost you much money to think/study about it, right?:)
he is /was talking about buying 2-3 houses. BTW that was then (2001) and this is now ..between then and now ..millions and millions of houses have been built and given to people with zero / no / absolutely no credit / downpayment. BTW I buy stocks when it is low and sell when it is high ..buying 2 houses or even 1 house in place like california ..is a big big thing (since no lender will give you loan unless you put in atleast 10 % ( 15 % - if you want to avoid PMI) ..just for argument sake ..say even if a person buy 3 adjacent (if u are lucky) houses (not townhomes) ..do you then buy 3 mowers or move them from 1 yard to another ? 3 bills ..prop / hoa / utilities ..it is a nightmare to even think about it ..and more so when you read articles from experts and economists who say prices will fall 15% more ..best is to have diversified portfolio with minimum expense (3 homes is big big expense)
Managing a rental property (when you have more than one house, you have to rent the other houses), is a totally different ball game. I have no personal experience with that field, but am actively considering it. It doesn't cost you much money to think/study about it, right?:)
he is /was talking about buying 2-3 houses. BTW that was then (2001) and this is now ..between then and now ..millions and millions of houses have been built and given to people with zero / no / absolutely no credit / downpayment. BTW I buy stocks when it is low and sell when it is high ..buying 2 houses or even 1 house in place like california ..is a big big thing (since no lender will give you loan unless you put in atleast 10 % ( 15 % - if you want to avoid PMI) ..just for argument sake ..say even if a person buy 3 adjacent (if u are lucky) houses (not townhomes) ..do you then buy 3 mowers or move them from 1 yard to another ? 3 bills ..prop / hoa / utilities ..it is a nightmare to even think about it ..and more so when you read articles from experts and economists who say prices will fall 15% more ..best is to have diversified portfolio with minimum expense (3 homes is big big expense)
hot Klondike gold rush.
485Mbe4001
09-29 07:55 PM
its ok, you misunderstood my point. I dont want to divert OP of this thread.
Anyways the fact of the matter is that we are in a limbo, all indications point to Obama becoming the next president of US. if CIR 2008 was any indication , we as EB applicants are royally screwed if Sen Durbin dictates his immigration policy. What is the use of talking about wars and innocent people when chances are that the advocate of his immigration policy is opposed to my main issue of EB reform. high low Taxes, 401k's, houses, Medicare etc will matter if you get to stay here in the first place. A average 6-9 years of paying taxes, supporting medicare and Social Security and we now need to think about moving to different countries where skilled immigrants are welcome....think about it. Just look at the CIR 2008 discussion to understand what i am talking about. Read the senators transcripts.
Ramayan was an epic written long time ago. It is a story(like stories in bibble). Creationism evolved just to oppose evolution theory and cause confusion to the evolution theory. They say it is based on science, when it is not. BTW evolution is also a fact, it is not just theory.
Spending on needless wars are not helping economy. With this economy there is little chance for GC. If everybody wants tax cut, who will pay the debt. Keep borrowing? Some one has to pay the interest at the least..
Clinton balanced the budget, while taxing the rich. McCain is for the 'trickle down economy' which we now see what it really is(DOW down 800 points). Obama is for tax cut for the average guys and not for the 'trickle down economy' scam.
Anyways the fact of the matter is that we are in a limbo, all indications point to Obama becoming the next president of US. if CIR 2008 was any indication , we as EB applicants are royally screwed if Sen Durbin dictates his immigration policy. What is the use of talking about wars and innocent people when chances are that the advocate of his immigration policy is opposed to my main issue of EB reform. high low Taxes, 401k's, houses, Medicare etc will matter if you get to stay here in the first place. A average 6-9 years of paying taxes, supporting medicare and Social Security and we now need to think about moving to different countries where skilled immigrants are welcome....think about it. Just look at the CIR 2008 discussion to understand what i am talking about. Read the senators transcripts.
Ramayan was an epic written long time ago. It is a story(like stories in bibble). Creationism evolved just to oppose evolution theory and cause confusion to the evolution theory. They say it is based on science, when it is not. BTW evolution is also a fact, it is not just theory.
Spending on needless wars are not helping economy. With this economy there is little chance for GC. If everybody wants tax cut, who will pay the debt. Keep borrowing? Some one has to pay the interest at the least..
Clinton balanced the budget, while taxing the rich. McCain is for the 'trickle down economy' which we now see what it really is(DOW down 800 points). Obama is for tax cut for the average guys and not for the 'trickle down economy' scam.
more...
house Gold Rush
jaocanada
07-17 02:08 PM
Manub,
Our prayers are with God to get you and your family out of this difficult period. I know of a close friend who went thru a similar situation regarding distress sale of the house but finally it all worked out. So keep the faith and be strong. Good luck.
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
Our prayers are with God to get you and your family out of this difficult period. I know of a close friend who went thru a similar situation regarding distress sale of the house but finally it all worked out. So keep the faith and be strong. Good luck.
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
tattoo california gold rush, gold
ilikekilo
03-25 04:27 PM
lol...you are right..
but dont know... I am going by hunch..I hope not to regret..:)
None of my business as to what you do but U not going thru a lawyer seems counter intuitive to me.. not sure why u r taking chances to see whether you would regret or not? anyways good luck man..
but dont know... I am going by hunch..I hope not to regret..:)
None of my business as to what you do but U not going thru a lawyer seems counter intuitive to me.. not sure why u r taking chances to see whether you would regret or not? anyways good luck man..
more...
pictures of five Gold Rush miners
xyzgc
12-27 01:05 AM
Well...
Thats a bit like asking one's father to explain the actions of Josef Fritzl.
Alisa, your points are logical. If you are from Pakistan, I'm really impressed. Its a pleasure to read your posts.
Most of the educated Pakis/muslims here on this forum have done nothing except to shower Indians with horrible, unspeakable abuses (will chop your d**k, was ur mom f***ed by Paki? to name a few) instead of explaining the opposite point of view properly.
Thats a bit like asking one's father to explain the actions of Josef Fritzl.
Alisa, your points are logical. If you are from Pakistan, I'm really impressed. Its a pleasure to read your posts.
Most of the educated Pakis/muslims here on this forum have done nothing except to shower Indians with horrible, unspeakable abuses (will chop your d**k, was ur mom f***ed by Paki? to name a few) instead of explaining the opposite point of view properly.
dresses drawn to the Gold Rush in
RaviG
07-14 08:24 PM
the spill over from EB1 should go equally to Eb2 and Eb3..can we work on getting this message across.
I dont understand your argument, may be I misunderstood. Who will benefit from EB1 to EB3 spill over ROW or retrogressed countries. It likely EB3 ROW. So why EB3 Indian writing the letter? May be things should be more clear about what you want to achieve.
I dont understand your argument, may be I misunderstood. Who will benefit from EB1 to EB3 spill over ROW or retrogressed countries. It likely EB3 ROW. So why EB3 Indian writing the letter? May be things should be more clear about what you want to achieve.
more...
makeup Prelude to the Gold Rush
alisa
01-04 01:22 AM
I think it's now a moot point with you playing obtuse( genuinely or otherwise)
Also I'm tempted to respectfully ask you to go through your posts rather than ask me how your are doing circles...
Check this one out...this is what you have been going on about....
proof for Kayani's involvement->How the entire episode could be Indian media's hype ->how the expectation to shed the inertia build up in Pak being a bit much->attributing the entire thing to hostile relationship btwn the 2 countries->How pakitanis think it's Taiban that's involved->Supposed Indian involvement in Pakistan destablization->non-state actors->How Masood and others should be rounded up->Etradition treaty uncertainity->screwing Dawood as he is past->Bihari thieves-> How Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why. 9/11->state->roaches->Paki state govt->don't know what else.
It looks like you concede a point to keep peddling anything/new things into the already complicated scenario. If you don't agree then please do what you find suitable.I don't want to be contributing into this frivolously logical loop any more than what I've already done.
Thank you.
I see you have put arrows in disparate points that I had made. I think you are reading way too much in it if you see circular logic, or even a link, in those disjointed points above.
There is a lot that has been said on this thread that I agree with. That is not 'conceding points'. Its just agreeing with something.
Also I'm tempted to respectfully ask you to go through your posts rather than ask me how your are doing circles...
Check this one out...this is what you have been going on about....
proof for Kayani's involvement->How the entire episode could be Indian media's hype ->how the expectation to shed the inertia build up in Pak being a bit much->attributing the entire thing to hostile relationship btwn the 2 countries->How pakitanis think it's Taiban that's involved->Supposed Indian involvement in Pakistan destablization->non-state actors->How Masood and others should be rounded up->Etradition treaty uncertainity->screwing Dawood as he is past->Bihari thieves-> How Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why. 9/11->state->roaches->Paki state govt->don't know what else.
It looks like you concede a point to keep peddling anything/new things into the already complicated scenario. If you don't agree then please do what you find suitable.I don't want to be contributing into this frivolously logical loop any more than what I've already done.
Thank you.
I see you have put arrows in disparate points that I had made. I think you are reading way too much in it if you see circular logic, or even a link, in those disjointed points above.
There is a lot that has been said on this thread that I agree with. That is not 'conceding points'. Its just agreeing with something.
girlfriend Klondyke Gold Rush miners
alterego
07-13 06:13 PM
Needless to say that the distincation between EB2 and EB3 has become so meaniningless now. How many positions really satisfy the EB2 requirements? From what I heard that most people just try to get around the system to get an EB2. One of the persons who filed EB2 told me that a high school graduate would probably be able to work in that position too.
Just my observation.[/QUOTE]
If you believe this to be the case. ie that a high school graduate should be able to do that job. Then that person should not get a green card for that job.
People, please think before you post and write letters. It is important to be rational and not put your foot in your mouth.
This is EB immigration and it is hierarchial. That is quite simply a fact not an opinion. The sooner people understand that, the better, and then everyone can channel their frustrations into broader fixes. Unless that can be done we will see these less than well planned, less than well coordinated, fitful efforts, and an internecine warfare that will make us a laughing stock and undermine the heroic efforts of IV core.
Just my observation.[/QUOTE]
If you believe this to be the case. ie that a high school graduate should be able to do that job. Then that person should not get a green card for that job.
People, please think before you post and write letters. It is important to be rational and not put your foot in your mouth.
This is EB immigration and it is hierarchial. That is quite simply a fact not an opinion. The sooner people understand that, the better, and then everyone can channel their frustrations into broader fixes. Unless that can be done we will see these less than well planned, less than well coordinated, fitful efforts, and an internecine warfare that will make us a laughing stock and undermine the heroic efforts of IV core.
hairstyles Gold Rush Miners
gc_in_30_yrs
01-29 09:48 PM
Here is a link to a Video report from CNN's program Lou Dobbs tonight regarding USCIS incorrect approval of H1-B petitions beyond the 65,000 yearly limit.
(http://www.forthecause.us/ftc-video-CNN-VisaCapsIgnored_070126.wmv)
http://www.forthecause.us/ftc-video-CNN-VisaCapsIgnored_070126.wmv
i think these numbers include H1B transfers from one company to other, and H1B extensions beyond first 3 years term or the further extentions based on labor pending, I-140 cleared etc. etc.
This guy looks genuine in what he believes, but he is missing the important piece of information. American people are not dumb as they look, they have little brians to understand. USCIS obviously can not approve more than 85K of applications.
Ofcourse even though it is said Visas Issued (i.e., permanent residence) but in the video they were showing H1B applications :)
in any case, we should ignore this guy as a whole.
Next thing, we should never spend lots of time or create any further threads. It gives them courage if we spend time on their issues.
(http://www.forthecause.us/ftc-video-CNN-VisaCapsIgnored_070126.wmv)
http://www.forthecause.us/ftc-video-CNN-VisaCapsIgnored_070126.wmv
i think these numbers include H1B transfers from one company to other, and H1B extensions beyond first 3 years term or the further extentions based on labor pending, I-140 cleared etc. etc.
This guy looks genuine in what he believes, but he is missing the important piece of information. American people are not dumb as they look, they have little brians to understand. USCIS obviously can not approve more than 85K of applications.
Ofcourse even though it is said Visas Issued (i.e., permanent residence) but in the video they were showing H1B applications :)
in any case, we should ignore this guy as a whole.
Next thing, we should never spend lots of time or create any further threads. It gives them courage if we spend time on their issues.
apt7
05-30 05:16 PM
According to wikipedia the def of a consultant is..
"The main difference between a consultant and a 'normal' expert is that the consultant is not himself employed with his client, but instead is in business for himself or for a consultancy firm, usually with multiple and changing clients. Thus, his clients have access to deeper levels of expertise than would be feasible for them to retain in-house, especially if the speciality is needed comparatively rarely. It is generally accepted good corporate governance to hire consultants as a check to the Principal-Agent problem."
Consultants have more exposure to the corporate environment than the full time empolyees who do the work as same old same old. Consultants usually and rapidly cater to the needs to the corporate needs of course chanrging huge fees unlike the FTEs.
"The main difference between a consultant and a 'normal' expert is that the consultant is not himself employed with his client, but instead is in business for himself or for a consultancy firm, usually with multiple and changing clients. Thus, his clients have access to deeper levels of expertise than would be feasible for them to retain in-house, especially if the speciality is needed comparatively rarely. It is generally accepted good corporate governance to hire consultants as a check to the Principal-Agent problem."
Consultants have more exposure to the corporate environment than the full time empolyees who do the work as same old same old. Consultants usually and rapidly cater to the needs to the corporate needs of course chanrging huge fees unlike the FTEs.
Macaca
03-19 01:23 PM
Lobbying in a Web World (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801138.html)
Speaking of doing better on the Hill, sign up now for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's April 3 lobbying workshop: "Getting Heard on Capitol Hill." It's part of a four-workshop series, "Winning in a Web World; Online Strategies for Grass-Roots Advocacy." (If you don't yet have grass roots, you can find out how to create them. )
The three panels on April 3 include one about using the Internet and another on "activating the grass roots." There's also a Q&A session on how lobbying reforms and new Federal Election Commission laws might affect your online efforts.
This being the Chamber of Commerce, the panelists are weighted toward the conservative end: former Bush aide Tucker Eskew, who had the spectacular title of White House director of global communications, and Stephen Hoersting, former general counsel at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. But there's also Winnie Stachelberg, former political director of the Human Rights Campaign who's now at the Center for American Progress, and some media folks and academics.
Speaking of doing better on the Hill, sign up now for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's April 3 lobbying workshop: "Getting Heard on Capitol Hill." It's part of a four-workshop series, "Winning in a Web World; Online Strategies for Grass-Roots Advocacy." (If you don't yet have grass roots, you can find out how to create them. )
The three panels on April 3 include one about using the Internet and another on "activating the grass roots." There's also a Q&A session on how lobbying reforms and new Federal Election Commission laws might affect your online efforts.
This being the Chamber of Commerce, the panelists are weighted toward the conservative end: former Bush aide Tucker Eskew, who had the spectacular title of White House director of global communications, and Stephen Hoersting, former general counsel at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. But there's also Winnie Stachelberg, former political director of the Human Rights Campaign who's now at the Center for American Progress, and some media folks and academics.
No comments:
Post a Comment