xyzgc
12-26 04:21 PM
Look at stratfor.com
Let us prove India is not a land of cowards, let us show that we are strong and we don't allow terrorists to attack our cities and our senate with impunity.
Remember, even your favorite Obama would not have hesitated to attack Afghanistan and Iraq post 9-11. He maintains he was opposed to the war on Iraq, but he has never said anything about Afghanistan. In fact, nobody did.
Most americans have supported the attack on Afghanistan, where Osama is believed to hiding along with other terrorists. Most americans oppose war on Iraq, because over 10k american soldiers have died, Isince the Iraq war began and the economy is in shambles and Iraqis are a drain on the failing economy.
In Obama's reminders that he opposed the Iraq war in 2002, he contrasts his record with that of Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war.
Yet a comparison of all 85 votes the Senate has held on Iraq since Obama entered the chamber shows he and Clinton differed only once -- when Obama voted to support the nomination of Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq for nearly three years, to become the Army chief of staff.
Let us prove India is not a land of cowards, let us show that we are strong and we don't allow terrorists to attack our cities and our senate with impunity.
Remember, even your favorite Obama would not have hesitated to attack Afghanistan and Iraq post 9-11. He maintains he was opposed to the war on Iraq, but he has never said anything about Afghanistan. In fact, nobody did.
Most americans have supported the attack on Afghanistan, where Osama is believed to hiding along with other terrorists. Most americans oppose war on Iraq, because over 10k american soldiers have died, Isince the Iraq war began and the economy is in shambles and Iraqis are a drain on the failing economy.
In Obama's reminders that he opposed the Iraq war in 2002, he contrasts his record with that of Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war.
Yet a comparison of all 85 votes the Senate has held on Iraq since Obama entered the chamber shows he and Clinton differed only once -- when Obama voted to support the nomination of Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq for nearly three years, to become the Army chief of staff.
wallpaper lady gaga hair single
Cheran
04-12 07:59 PM
When in college students used to rag others just because they were ragged when they joined the college. It�s not because they want to, it is just because they went through it. Indian software companies are just like, I worked enough in software industry and I have even been on call 24 hours but the truth is, it was never 12 hours or 10 hours work every day. Yes, occasionally I had 12 hours work which is the same in every industry and I used to get calls in the middle of the night at least once or twice during the night, but its not 10 hours work everyday. We want to impress our boss by working 10 hours, that�s the truth; it�s not that your boss wants.
Similarly, in India people go to work on Saturday not because they have work but to show their face to their PM. Even if God comes down and says that people in India work 10 hours everyday, I cannot believe it. They might be in office for 10-12 hours but that does not mean they are working. It is the people who should be blamed for this. Yesterday�s programmer or today�s PM, and they expect the programmer to be there in the office for 10 hours just because they went through it. I am an ex TCSer, things worked exactly as I said. It is never going to change. All these talks about stress and coding 10 hours straight come on.....:cool:
On a side note
There are serious health implications working on a sedentry job like software coding for long hours. You will notice it after you are 40. No company will give you your health back.
I recently had a big conversation with the doctor about this when i went for my phhysicals. Doctors say the software engineer lifestyle where people work long long hours is not a good lifestyle. I explained to him that it is because people's green cards is tied up and they do it by compulsion.
I have seen some people working continuously for days , weeks , months together. I have done that too. It is not a good thing to do. health is wealth and one must take care of it first.
This is what happens in India where a lot of outsourcing is going on. Young engineers getting high pay and expected to work long hours "this seems to be an unofficial protocol" and thats how the whole industry has turned out to be.
Here you have your weekends - save your weekends for yoruself. Go out enjoy. If your office calls ur cell switch it off or keep it on vibrate. Go and golf, watch broad way shows, play tennis , etc..
I do not wish to deviate from the original topic. But just wanted to let you know that "Your health is your first priority"
Similarly, in India people go to work on Saturday not because they have work but to show their face to their PM. Even if God comes down and says that people in India work 10 hours everyday, I cannot believe it. They might be in office for 10-12 hours but that does not mean they are working. It is the people who should be blamed for this. Yesterday�s programmer or today�s PM, and they expect the programmer to be there in the office for 10 hours just because they went through it. I am an ex TCSer, things worked exactly as I said. It is never going to change. All these talks about stress and coding 10 hours straight come on.....:cool:
On a side note
There are serious health implications working on a sedentry job like software coding for long hours. You will notice it after you are 40. No company will give you your health back.
I recently had a big conversation with the doctor about this when i went for my phhysicals. Doctors say the software engineer lifestyle where people work long long hours is not a good lifestyle. I explained to him that it is because people's green cards is tied up and they do it by compulsion.
I have seen some people working continuously for days , weeks , months together. I have done that too. It is not a good thing to do. health is wealth and one must take care of it first.
This is what happens in India where a lot of outsourcing is going on. Young engineers getting high pay and expected to work long hours "this seems to be an unofficial protocol" and thats how the whole industry has turned out to be.
Here you have your weekends - save your weekends for yoruself. Go out enjoy. If your office calls ur cell switch it off or keep it on vibrate. Go and golf, watch broad way shows, play tennis , etc..
I do not wish to deviate from the original topic. But just wanted to let you know that "Your health is your first priority"
gcisadawg
12-23 12:24 AM
Good post,
You post is a testimony that not all hope is lost with Islam. There are still people like yourselves who can think objectively or at least open to one.
And this is the reason why I am not against Islam as this would also mean that I am raising my fingers on the guys like urself.
Dude, if ss1026 is not on this forum, then is the absence of ss1026 a testimony to the fact that all hopes are lost with islam? I dont buy this line of thinking. we are better than that!
You post is a testimony that not all hope is lost with Islam. There are still people like yourselves who can think objectively or at least open to one.
And this is the reason why I am not against Islam as this would also mean that I am raising my fingers on the guys like urself.
Dude, if ss1026 is not on this forum, then is the absence of ss1026 a testimony to the fact that all hopes are lost with islam? I dont buy this line of thinking. we are better than that!
2011 Singer Lady GaGa
number30
03-26 06:14 PM
Per my understanding, it absolutely is. An LCA amendment has to be filed each time there is a location change outside of commutable distance from the original location for which the H-1B was filed.
That what our attorney's office said. One guy moved from Houston TX to Austin TX . Earlier we use to get LCA and keep it in file. when we asked the attorney last year he told us do H1 amendment. In doing this amendments filing etc company is losing the business. Now they are planning come out of H1 Business totally
That what our attorney's office said. One guy moved from Houston TX to Austin TX . Earlier we use to get LCA and keep it in file. when we asked the attorney last year he told us do H1 amendment. In doing this amendments filing etc company is losing the business. Now they are planning come out of H1 Business totally
more...
qasleuth
06-05 03:09 PM
Yeah, but why do you have to BUY that house to live in it if in the same neighbor hood same or similar house can be rented at much lower price?
Kids can still play and enjoy the sprinklers and you can still enjoy your beer. Isn't it?
don't think the rent will be much lower than paying the mortgage, it is true atleast in the city where I live. For example: If I am paying a mortgage of $1200 and the rental of an equivalent is $ 900, the $300 difference you get back in tax refund at the end of the year. So why pay rent when I can buy a house and do whatever I want to with it ?
Infact we have attached a sense of pride in owning even if we can't afford it. I am not talking about you but in general. People bought 700K houses in 100K salary. And this is a VERY good salary but it still can't afford a 700K house!
Where I live, the median house price is 200,000. I bought a house which is lower than the median and when the market was on the downward trend (september 2006). If you look at the post I quoted, you would notice that I am not subscribing to the crazies who bought houses with the example dollar amounts you gave. If you know your limits and do 2 hours of internet research, then the person probably will make a much better decision. The information and warning signs were there everywhere starting 2005, if people chose to ignore and got burned then shame on them.
Kids can still play and enjoy the sprinklers and you can still enjoy your beer. Isn't it?
don't think the rent will be much lower than paying the mortgage, it is true atleast in the city where I live. For example: If I am paying a mortgage of $1200 and the rental of an equivalent is $ 900, the $300 difference you get back in tax refund at the end of the year. So why pay rent when I can buy a house and do whatever I want to with it ?
Infact we have attached a sense of pride in owning even if we can't afford it. I am not talking about you but in general. People bought 700K houses in 100K salary. And this is a VERY good salary but it still can't afford a 700K house!
Where I live, the median house price is 200,000. I bought a house which is lower than the median and when the market was on the downward trend (september 2006). If you look at the post I quoted, you would notice that I am not subscribing to the crazies who bought houses with the example dollar amounts you gave. If you know your limits and do 2 hours of internet research, then the person probably will make a much better decision. The information and warning signs were there everywhere starting 2005, if people chose to ignore and got burned then shame on them.
Marphad
12-25 12:20 AM
What a tiresome thread!!!
Several years ago, people actually made an effort to make IV an organization representing all skilled workers, from all parts of the world. Now, immigration matters are totally irrelevant on the forums. Heck, forget about being an exclusively India focused forum, as this thread demonstrates, it is a venue to vent on matters even more narrowly focused - My religion, my sect, my opinion, my petty prejudices. If this is not irrelevant enough, we have enough threads on red dot-green dots to justify a whole separate category of forums :rolleyes:
Anyway, it does a pretty good job of turning off people. I guarantee you this thread alone has contributed significantly in influencing many planning on attending the March rally to change their mind. It sure did mine.
Pineapple is mostly right. The thread went little too far.
Several years ago, people actually made an effort to make IV an organization representing all skilled workers, from all parts of the world. Now, immigration matters are totally irrelevant on the forums. Heck, forget about being an exclusively India focused forum, as this thread demonstrates, it is a venue to vent on matters even more narrowly focused - My religion, my sect, my opinion, my petty prejudices. If this is not irrelevant enough, we have enough threads on red dot-green dots to justify a whole separate category of forums :rolleyes:
Anyway, it does a pretty good job of turning off people. I guarantee you this thread alone has contributed significantly in influencing many planning on attending the March rally to change their mind. It sure did mine.
Pineapple is mostly right. The thread went little too far.
more...
snathan
01-11 01:38 PM
First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
I don�t agree with your argument. Who is holing up the innocents..? Hamas using the kids and civilians as human shield. I also don�t consider the civilians as innocent there. They are whole heartedly support and elected Hamas -the terror organization. They are the one poisoning the kids with hatred. But I feel very sorry for the kids and the developments are very much disturbing.
The Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria � the devil�s club will never achieve their goal � wipe out ISREAL from the map. ISREAL is IS REAL and this mullahs needs to understand that.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
I don�t agree with your argument. Who is holing up the innocents..? Hamas using the kids and civilians as human shield. I also don�t consider the civilians as innocent there. They are whole heartedly support and elected Hamas -the terror organization. They are the one poisoning the kids with hatred. But I feel very sorry for the kids and the developments are very much disturbing.
The Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria � the devil�s club will never achieve their goal � wipe out ISREAL from the map. ISREAL is IS REAL and this mullahs needs to understand that.
2010 Lady Gaga crazy hairstyles.
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.
more...
gomirage
06-07 04:56 PM
The above story should not come as a shock to anyone. This is just economics laws coming to to play. This keep going until the market finds it equilibrium point, where there are enough people that can afford the supply. This can happen in 2 ways. either income rises for people to afford the prices or prices fall low enough for people to buy. High skilled immigration can provide answers in scenario 1, low skilled immigration may be an answer in scenario 2.
hair of Lady Gaga Hair Styles
unitednations
08-08 04:24 PM
Because I do not remember which address I used on the visa application, and how I translated my employer's name in home country. In China, at least those days, everyone had a residence record showing your address. We had ours at my in-law's address, while living in a new development. We might used one of those two addresses. Same thing with company names, merging, name changing etc was common.
According to Crystal and Milind70, I am a bit relieved as my visa application was a long time ago. So I may not need to worry about it. Thanks everyone.
check out immigration-law; breaking news. he even says not to rely on this because the procedural manual is outdated.
According to Crystal and Milind70, I am a bit relieved as my visa application was a long time ago. So I may not need to worry about it. Thanks everyone.
check out immigration-law; breaking news. he even says not to rely on this because the procedural manual is outdated.
more...
mariner5555
04-15 02:19 PM
Agreed, but then you have no way of knowing if you would have been less happier growing up in a bigger home. For all you know, you may have been more happier.
That is the general line of thinking everyone has including all the people who are posting on this forum. If more money does not equate to a better life, then why are all these people taking the trouble to desert their home land and live in a foreign country? If more money => better lifestyle, then it follows a home can provide a relatively better environment to a child than an apartment.
If all Americans live in rented apartments, drive only used Japanese cars (resale value), furnished their homes with scant used furniture and were focussed on investing their money than spending it, then the American economy will go down to the level of a third world country in less than 10 years.
This does not mean everyone has to run out and buy a home. The point as I said earlier is to see a home as a home and not as an investment.
this maybe your view .. but I can find some faults with it.
yes ..more money is equal to better lifestyle but a bigger house is not necessarily a better lifestyle for everyone. for many tech workers, following this line of reasoning will cause them more problems.
I don't know about you ..but I came here to US for money and for better quality of life (I didnot come here to buy a big house !!). a big house would mean that I have less money as more money goes for property tax / maintenance etc etc
now ..since I save money by renting ..I can afford to put my son in better dayschool, fund his college fund , take him for more freq vacations etc etc.
now this maybe different for some people ..maybe those earning more than 125 K or with double income.
also ..do you mean people should pay more for a house than it is worth ??
I agree with yr last points ...that not everyone has to run ..and thats what I am saying.
once you get GC and have a stable job and get a good offer on a house ...buy ..else wait. In other words ..as you are implying ..if you can afford a big house without making heavy sacrifices ..then go for it.
(but many people that I know ..buy big houses ..then try to save money on air conditioning, restaurants etc).
the other main problem with H1/ EAD is that you become immobile ..esp if you have to move for various reasons (since you have to worry about your legal status too ..).
btw ..if all americans stayed in rental (or smaller homes ) and drove japanese fuel eff cars ..then the world would have been a better place with lower gas prices :)
That is the general line of thinking everyone has including all the people who are posting on this forum. If more money does not equate to a better life, then why are all these people taking the trouble to desert their home land and live in a foreign country? If more money => better lifestyle, then it follows a home can provide a relatively better environment to a child than an apartment.
If all Americans live in rented apartments, drive only used Japanese cars (resale value), furnished their homes with scant used furniture and were focussed on investing their money than spending it, then the American economy will go down to the level of a third world country in less than 10 years.
This does not mean everyone has to run out and buy a home. The point as I said earlier is to see a home as a home and not as an investment.
this maybe your view .. but I can find some faults with it.
yes ..more money is equal to better lifestyle but a bigger house is not necessarily a better lifestyle for everyone. for many tech workers, following this line of reasoning will cause them more problems.
I don't know about you ..but I came here to US for money and for better quality of life (I didnot come here to buy a big house !!). a big house would mean that I have less money as more money goes for property tax / maintenance etc etc
now ..since I save money by renting ..I can afford to put my son in better dayschool, fund his college fund , take him for more freq vacations etc etc.
now this maybe different for some people ..maybe those earning more than 125 K or with double income.
also ..do you mean people should pay more for a house than it is worth ??
I agree with yr last points ...that not everyone has to run ..and thats what I am saying.
once you get GC and have a stable job and get a good offer on a house ...buy ..else wait. In other words ..as you are implying ..if you can afford a big house without making heavy sacrifices ..then go for it.
(but many people that I know ..buy big houses ..then try to save money on air conditioning, restaurants etc).
the other main problem with H1/ EAD is that you become immobile ..esp if you have to move for various reasons (since you have to worry about your legal status too ..).
btw ..if all americans stayed in rental (or smaller homes ) and drove japanese fuel eff cars ..then the world would have been a better place with lower gas prices :)
hot lady gaga#39;s ghosts of
kuppas
04-09 02:18 PM
The requirement 2f is good and now the companies can not exploid the H-1B cap.
The requirement 2g is good too. There are lot of consulting companies don't pay properly to the employee though they charge lot of money from the client. This requirement at-least restrict employer who makes lot of money and buying multiple house, playing in the stock market, drinking in the bar, doing research by sleeping.
There are lot of consulting companies fake the resume and says that candidate has more than 5 years of experience but actually candidate has only few months of text book experience. How do you differentiate such people with actual experience?
Personally, I hate the consulting companies who just aims to make money instead of running business genuinely.
-Kuppa
The requirement 2g is good too. There are lot of consulting companies don't pay properly to the employee though they charge lot of money from the client. This requirement at-least restrict employer who makes lot of money and buying multiple house, playing in the stock market, drinking in the bar, doing research by sleeping.
There are lot of consulting companies fake the resume and says that candidate has more than 5 years of experience but actually candidate has only few months of text book experience. How do you differentiate such people with actual experience?
Personally, I hate the consulting companies who just aims to make money instead of running business genuinely.
-Kuppa
more...
house Lady gaga wearing a very chic
posmd
07-08 07:32 PM
I feel the same way Gondalguru. This is a globalised world or atleast so the US would like everyone else to believe. In that sense where you are should matter less than the contribution you are making, yet alas the immigration system is stuck in its 20th century President Kennedy era mindset of "reuniting families". I am not against that per se as it is a noble virtue, but when I see that to be in direct contravention of the aims and objectives of globalization which incidently the USA also champions so vehemently, I sense hypocrisy at worst or a conflict of policy at best.
My parents immigrated to a country which is NOT retrogressed (ROW of which I hold a passport) when I was 3 yrs old.
I was schooled and in every other way raised as such. Yet I was born in India................as you rightly point out by mere chance. Yet I am saddled with the consequence of waiting in line with every other applicant from India. If that were not funny enough, one of my close friends, his parents were in the USA in the 60s and left when his mother was 7-8 months pregnant with him, and he was born in India, now he has to go through the same line, he also holds a ROW passport. Should the majority of gestation count toward his citizenship?
These are difficult questions and the current policy is ill geared to deal with them. Those that win from them laud them and those that get hurt curse them. It is what it is..........dysfunctional.
It either is or it is not a globalised world, and the policy is or is not such. Unfortunately we are all caught in this indecisive mode that the US currently finds itself locked into, it is not just about us and our immigration situation, it is about a lot of other issues as well and the USA will spend the next 10-20 yrs figuring this out.
My parents immigrated to a country which is NOT retrogressed (ROW of which I hold a passport) when I was 3 yrs old.
I was schooled and in every other way raised as such. Yet I was born in India................as you rightly point out by mere chance. Yet I am saddled with the consequence of waiting in line with every other applicant from India. If that were not funny enough, one of my close friends, his parents were in the USA in the 60s and left when his mother was 7-8 months pregnant with him, and he was born in India, now he has to go through the same line, he also holds a ROW passport. Should the majority of gestation count toward his citizenship?
These are difficult questions and the current policy is ill geared to deal with them. Those that win from them laud them and those that get hurt curse them. It is what it is..........dysfunctional.
It either is or it is not a globalised world, and the policy is or is not such. Unfortunately we are all caught in this indecisive mode that the US currently finds itself locked into, it is not just about us and our immigration situation, it is about a lot of other issues as well and the USA will spend the next 10-20 yrs figuring this out.
tattoo Lady Gaga Hair
new_phd
08-10 01:58 PM
Sorry to post in this thread, but I was wondering if United Nations would be kind enough to answer two questions for me (well, actually one is from my colleague). They are kind of generic so it might help other people too, I hope. I posted this on other threads but I havent gotten any responses for the longest time, so Im posting here. Very sorry to those who are following this thread for the original topic.
1) From my colleague: As per his family customs, his mothers FIRST name was also changed after marriage. Before marriage she was Vimla Patil, and now she is Anasuya Deshpande. She uses her married first name and last name on her passport, childrens birth certificate, etc. Only her school leaving has her maiden first name, maiden last name.
He was wondering how to put this info on his I-485/G-325a form. They ask for Mothers Maiden name in one column, and then first name in the next. If he puts down Patil and then Anasuya - it wont be correct as such a person doesnt exist. What is the best way to represent her name. (remember, the birth cert that he will be submitting for himself will have her name as Anasuya Deshpande)
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
2) My question (and this has been asked before, but no one has a rock solid answer). My husband's labor has been approved, approved I-140, his priority date is Oct 2006. I received a labor sub (please dont scream at me.. I dint have anything to do with the matching... it just came my way:o) , but pending I-140, my priority date (if I-140 is approved) will be Feb 2005.
I wanted to know if we should only choose one of these two applications to proceed further or file two I-485 applications- One with me as primary and him as beneficiary, and the other with him as primary. There are these rare postings where people have said that USCIS can reject both applications/ drop both or deny one initially itself, or ask you to choose one upfront. No one has talked about successful multiple filings, so we dont have unbiased statistics in this space. What is your thought on this issue? Which way would you recommend we proceed? Frankly, I am nervous about my application until the I-140 clears, (and my I-140 was only applied in July 2007) ... yet my husbands pd is almost 20 months after mine. Please enlighten.
Thanks!
FYI, both of us have been in the U.S since 2000, but for various strokes of timely bad luck we couldnt file until Dec 2006, So I hope there arent too many hard feelings from people who have also waited as long as we have. I know the feeling.
1) From my colleague: As per his family customs, his mothers FIRST name was also changed after marriage. Before marriage she was Vimla Patil, and now she is Anasuya Deshpande. She uses her married first name and last name on her passport, childrens birth certificate, etc. Only her school leaving has her maiden first name, maiden last name.
He was wondering how to put this info on his I-485/G-325a form. They ask for Mothers Maiden name in one column, and then first name in the next. If he puts down Patil and then Anasuya - it wont be correct as such a person doesnt exist. What is the best way to represent her name. (remember, the birth cert that he will be submitting for himself will have her name as Anasuya Deshpande)
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
2) My question (and this has been asked before, but no one has a rock solid answer). My husband's labor has been approved, approved I-140, his priority date is Oct 2006. I received a labor sub (please dont scream at me.. I dint have anything to do with the matching... it just came my way:o) , but pending I-140, my priority date (if I-140 is approved) will be Feb 2005.
I wanted to know if we should only choose one of these two applications to proceed further or file two I-485 applications- One with me as primary and him as beneficiary, and the other with him as primary. There are these rare postings where people have said that USCIS can reject both applications/ drop both or deny one initially itself, or ask you to choose one upfront. No one has talked about successful multiple filings, so we dont have unbiased statistics in this space. What is your thought on this issue? Which way would you recommend we proceed? Frankly, I am nervous about my application until the I-140 clears, (and my I-140 was only applied in July 2007) ... yet my husbands pd is almost 20 months after mine. Please enlighten.
Thanks!
FYI, both of us have been in the U.S since 2000, but for various strokes of timely bad luck we couldnt file until Dec 2006, So I hope there arent too many hard feelings from people who have also waited as long as we have. I know the feeling.
more...
pictures Lady Gaga wearing a short bowl
unitednations
03-25 12:41 PM
Thanks for the link. Essentially there are 2 issues here
1. Proving that Employee - Employer relationship exists between H1 beneficiary and employer. The ability to hire, pay, supervise and fire should be demonstrated.
In cases where it is denying, USCIS is of opinion that the employer is in contract, manpower agency and their variants.
This is somewhat analogous to similar test done by IRS to establish emploee-employer relationship in case of independent contractors.
Not sure if it would make much difference, but if the petition letter demonstrates that the employer has control over the employee required matters, provide equipment (laptop etc) and that employer is primarily not in manpower business, it may fly.
2. Second issue is about need to bachelors degree and that computer programming is speciality occupation. I think there are clear precedents on this with guidance memos from USCIS agreeing that computer analyst /programmer is indeed a speciality occupation and that bachelors degree is a minimum requirement.
I am unable to attach actual doc on this message because of size limitations. But here is summary quoting from murthy.com
"In a December 22, 2000 memorandum from INS Nebraska Service Center (NSC) Director Terry Way to NSC Adjudications Officers, NSC acknowledges the specialized and complex nature of most Computer Programming positions. The memo describes both Computer Programmers and Programmer Analysts as occupations in transition, meaning that the entry requirements have evolved as described in the above paragraph.
Therefore, NSC will generally consider the position of Computer Programmer to be a specialty occupation. The memo draws a distinction between a position with actual programming duties (programming and analysis, customized design and/or modification of software, resolution of problems) and one that simply involves entering computer code for a non-computer related business.
The requirements in the OOH have evolved from bachelor's degrees being generally required but 2-year degrees being acceptable; to the current situation with bachelor's degrees again being required, while those with 2-year degrees can qualify only for some lower level jobs."
Onc; uscis determines that company is an agent then they ignore the part of the petition with the job duties. They pass on the burden of job duties, description, etc to the place where person is going to work. Essentially; they state that since h-1b company is not contolling thei work then they are not in position to state job duties or whether job requires a degree.
1. Proving that Employee - Employer relationship exists between H1 beneficiary and employer. The ability to hire, pay, supervise and fire should be demonstrated.
In cases where it is denying, USCIS is of opinion that the employer is in contract, manpower agency and their variants.
This is somewhat analogous to similar test done by IRS to establish emploee-employer relationship in case of independent contractors.
Not sure if it would make much difference, but if the petition letter demonstrates that the employer has control over the employee required matters, provide equipment (laptop etc) and that employer is primarily not in manpower business, it may fly.
2. Second issue is about need to bachelors degree and that computer programming is speciality occupation. I think there are clear precedents on this with guidance memos from USCIS agreeing that computer analyst /programmer is indeed a speciality occupation and that bachelors degree is a minimum requirement.
I am unable to attach actual doc on this message because of size limitations. But here is summary quoting from murthy.com
"In a December 22, 2000 memorandum from INS Nebraska Service Center (NSC) Director Terry Way to NSC Adjudications Officers, NSC acknowledges the specialized and complex nature of most Computer Programming positions. The memo describes both Computer Programmers and Programmer Analysts as occupations in transition, meaning that the entry requirements have evolved as described in the above paragraph.
Therefore, NSC will generally consider the position of Computer Programmer to be a specialty occupation. The memo draws a distinction between a position with actual programming duties (programming and analysis, customized design and/or modification of software, resolution of problems) and one that simply involves entering computer code for a non-computer related business.
The requirements in the OOH have evolved from bachelor's degrees being generally required but 2-year degrees being acceptable; to the current situation with bachelor's degrees again being required, while those with 2-year degrees can qualify only for some lower level jobs."
Onc; uscis determines that company is an agent then they ignore the part of the petition with the job duties. They pass on the burden of job duties, description, etc to the place where person is going to work. Essentially; they state that since h-1b company is not contolling thei work then they are not in position to state job duties or whether job requires a degree.
dresses Take ideas from Lady Gaga
dpp
05-16 12:18 PM
US congress cannot force investors to invest money only in US and get work done only in US.
Its not possible for US Government to ban outsourcing. The only thing they can do is create incentives to limit outsourcing. However, if a company still wants to outsource jobs overseas, Congress cant do ANYTHING about it.
I heard sometime back that some states banned Outsourcing of govt work. Is it not correct?
Its not possible for US Government to ban outsourcing. The only thing they can do is create incentives to limit outsourcing. However, if a company still wants to outsource jobs overseas, Congress cant do ANYTHING about it.
I heard sometime back that some states banned Outsourcing of govt work. Is it not correct?
more...
makeup Lady Gaga#39;s Platinum Blonde
Macaca
05-11 05:28 PM
The 'Education' Mantra (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/10/the_education_mantra_109799.html) By Thomas Sowell | Investor's Business Daily
One of the sad and dangerous signs of our times is how many people are enthralled by words, without bothering to look at the realities behind those words.
One of those words that many people seldom look behind is "education." But education can cover anything from courses on nuclear physics to courses on baton twirling.
Unfortunately, an increasing proportion of American education, whether in the schools or in the colleges and universities, is closer to the baton twirling end of the spectrum than toward the nuclear physics end. Even reputable colleges are increasingly teaching things that students should have learned in high school.
We don't have a backlog of serious students trying to take serious courses. If you look at the fields in which American students specialize in colleges and universities, those fields are heavily weighted toward the soft end of the spectrum.
When it comes to postgraduate study in tough fields like math and science, you often find foreign students at American universities receiving more of such degrees than do Americans.
A recent headline in the Chronicle of Higher Education said: "Master's in English: Will Mow Lawns." It featured a man with that degree who has gone into the landscaping business because there is no great demand for people with Master's degrees in English.
Too many of the people coming out of even our most prestigious academic institutions graduate with neither the skills to be economically productive nor the intellectual development to make them discerning citizens and voters.
Students can graduate from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country, without ever learning anything about science, mathematics, economics or anything else that would make them either a productive contributor to the economy or an informed voter who can see through political rhetoric.
On the contrary, people with such "education" are often more susceptible to demagoguery than the population at large. Nor is this a situation peculiar to America. In countries around the world, people with degrees in soft subjects have been sources of political unrest, instability and even mass violence.
Nor is this a new phenomenon. A scholarly history of 19th century Prague referred to "the well-educated but underemployed" Czech young men who promoted ethnic polarization there-- a polarization that not only continued, but escalated, in the 20th century to produce bitter tragedies for both Czechs and Germans.
In other central European countries, between the two World Wars a rising class of newly educated young people bitterly resented having to compete with better qualified Jews in the universities and with Jews already established in business and the professions. Anti-Semitic policies and violence were the result.
It was much the same story in Asia, where successful minorities like the Chinese in Malaysia were resented by newly educated Malays without either the educational or business skills to compete with them. These Malaysians demanded-- and got-- heavily discriminatory laws and policies against the Chinese.
Similar situations developed at various times in Nigeria, Romania, Sri Lanka, Hungary and India, among other places.
Many Third World countries have turned out so many people with diplomas, but without meaningful skills, that "the educated unemployed" became a cliche among people who study such countries. This has not only become a personal problem for those individuals who have been educated, or half-educated, without acquiring any ability to fulfill their rising expectations, it has become a major economic and political problem for these countries.
Such people have proven to be ideal targets for demagogues promoting polarization and strife. We in the United States are still in the early stages of that process. But you need only visit campuses where whole departments feature soft courses preaching a sense of victimhood and resentment, and see the consequences in racial and ethnic polarization on campus.
There are too many other soft courses that allow students to spend years in college without becoming educated in any real sense.
We don't need more government "investment" to produce more of such "education." Lofty words like "investment" should not blind us to the ugly reality of political porkbarrel spending.
Tiger Mom: Here's how to reshape U.S. education (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-10-Reshape-US-education_n.htm) By Amy Chua | USA Today
The American Idea: An Open Letter To College Graduates (http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/09/american-idea-college-graduates.html) By Carl Schramm | Forbes
The Myth of American Exceptionalism (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/10/taking_exceptionalism_109795.html) By Richard Cohen | Washington Post
The Role of Economics in an Imperfect World (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/the-role-of-economics-in-an-imperfect-world/) By EDWARD L. GLAESER | New York Times
Where the Jobs Were Lost (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/where-the-jobs-were-lost/) By CASEY B. MULLIGAN | New York Times
No, We Are Not a Nation of Hamburger Flippers (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/05/09/nation-hamburger-flippers/) By Elizabeth MacDonald | Fox Business
Multinationals Dump U.S. Workers for Foreign Labor (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/05/09/Multinationals-Dump-US-Workers-for-Foreign-Labor.aspx) By JAMES C. COOPER | The Fiscal Times
California Economy Gets a Jolt From Tech Hiring (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576311373667322428.html) By JIM CARLTON | Wall Street Journal
One of the sad and dangerous signs of our times is how many people are enthralled by words, without bothering to look at the realities behind those words.
One of those words that many people seldom look behind is "education." But education can cover anything from courses on nuclear physics to courses on baton twirling.
Unfortunately, an increasing proportion of American education, whether in the schools or in the colleges and universities, is closer to the baton twirling end of the spectrum than toward the nuclear physics end. Even reputable colleges are increasingly teaching things that students should have learned in high school.
We don't have a backlog of serious students trying to take serious courses. If you look at the fields in which American students specialize in colleges and universities, those fields are heavily weighted toward the soft end of the spectrum.
When it comes to postgraduate study in tough fields like math and science, you often find foreign students at American universities receiving more of such degrees than do Americans.
A recent headline in the Chronicle of Higher Education said: "Master's in English: Will Mow Lawns." It featured a man with that degree who has gone into the landscaping business because there is no great demand for people with Master's degrees in English.
Too many of the people coming out of even our most prestigious academic institutions graduate with neither the skills to be economically productive nor the intellectual development to make them discerning citizens and voters.
Students can graduate from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country, without ever learning anything about science, mathematics, economics or anything else that would make them either a productive contributor to the economy or an informed voter who can see through political rhetoric.
On the contrary, people with such "education" are often more susceptible to demagoguery than the population at large. Nor is this a situation peculiar to America. In countries around the world, people with degrees in soft subjects have been sources of political unrest, instability and even mass violence.
Nor is this a new phenomenon. A scholarly history of 19th century Prague referred to "the well-educated but underemployed" Czech young men who promoted ethnic polarization there-- a polarization that not only continued, but escalated, in the 20th century to produce bitter tragedies for both Czechs and Germans.
In other central European countries, between the two World Wars a rising class of newly educated young people bitterly resented having to compete with better qualified Jews in the universities and with Jews already established in business and the professions. Anti-Semitic policies and violence were the result.
It was much the same story in Asia, where successful minorities like the Chinese in Malaysia were resented by newly educated Malays without either the educational or business skills to compete with them. These Malaysians demanded-- and got-- heavily discriminatory laws and policies against the Chinese.
Similar situations developed at various times in Nigeria, Romania, Sri Lanka, Hungary and India, among other places.
Many Third World countries have turned out so many people with diplomas, but without meaningful skills, that "the educated unemployed" became a cliche among people who study such countries. This has not only become a personal problem for those individuals who have been educated, or half-educated, without acquiring any ability to fulfill their rising expectations, it has become a major economic and political problem for these countries.
Such people have proven to be ideal targets for demagogues promoting polarization and strife. We in the United States are still in the early stages of that process. But you need only visit campuses where whole departments feature soft courses preaching a sense of victimhood and resentment, and see the consequences in racial and ethnic polarization on campus.
There are too many other soft courses that allow students to spend years in college without becoming educated in any real sense.
We don't need more government "investment" to produce more of such "education." Lofty words like "investment" should not blind us to the ugly reality of political porkbarrel spending.
Tiger Mom: Here's how to reshape U.S. education (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-10-Reshape-US-education_n.htm) By Amy Chua | USA Today
The American Idea: An Open Letter To College Graduates (http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/09/american-idea-college-graduates.html) By Carl Schramm | Forbes
The Myth of American Exceptionalism (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/10/taking_exceptionalism_109795.html) By Richard Cohen | Washington Post
The Role of Economics in an Imperfect World (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/the-role-of-economics-in-an-imperfect-world/) By EDWARD L. GLAESER | New York Times
Where the Jobs Were Lost (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/where-the-jobs-were-lost/) By CASEY B. MULLIGAN | New York Times
No, We Are Not a Nation of Hamburger Flippers (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/05/09/nation-hamburger-flippers/) By Elizabeth MacDonald | Fox Business
Multinationals Dump U.S. Workers for Foreign Labor (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/05/09/Multinationals-Dump-US-Workers-for-Foreign-Labor.aspx) By JAMES C. COOPER | The Fiscal Times
California Economy Gets a Jolt From Tech Hiring (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576311373667322428.html) By JIM CARLTON | Wall Street Journal
girlfriend Lady Gaga Short Hairstyles.
sanju
12-28 01:10 AM
I hope so.
I agree with most of what you said. I just think that the expectation to shed the inertia built over two to three decades is a bit too much. It is going to take time, regardless of what anyone wants. Ironically, hostile relationships between India and Pakistan are only going to prolong the process.
I disagree, this is not the hostile relationship between two countries, we see this as one country and the international community applying pressure on Pakistan. Without this pressure, there is no way Pakistan will gather the "motivation" to dismantle the terror network. The terror network will get dismantled only if there are two choices, either Pakistan dismantles the terror network or we will dismantle it for Pakistan. Without a direct approach, nothing will change.
On a different note, there is only one outcome of over analysis by computer analyst or business application analyst, and that outcome is -war is too "expensive". What about the lives of those 200 people who were killed? Please don't expense those 200 lives and other 100,000 lives in last 10 years by your "over analytical" computer analyst Mircosoft projects approach calculating the "cost of the war". What if it is your father who is targated by the terrorist next, I want to know who all will still run the profit and loss statement if your father is killed by the next strike by the terrorist. Will you only agree to a war when your own family member is killed? Don't you think its time to put the bleeding innocent people ahead of this "over analysis".
We are peace loving people. But should we not respond to the war we did not start. We are not the aggressor, we are the victim here for christ sake.
Wars are decided by brave men, wars are faught by warriors, and wars are won by patriots. Over analysis at the time of war is a sign of weakness - message of Gita. I hope we agree that War is not like a lala shop to prepare a profit & loss statement before making a decision. We did not start this war, it is being forced on us. The question is - should we respond to the war that is forced on us, the war we did not start, but the war which we have the strength to end.
.
I agree with most of what you said. I just think that the expectation to shed the inertia built over two to three decades is a bit too much. It is going to take time, regardless of what anyone wants. Ironically, hostile relationships between India and Pakistan are only going to prolong the process.
I disagree, this is not the hostile relationship between two countries, we see this as one country and the international community applying pressure on Pakistan. Without this pressure, there is no way Pakistan will gather the "motivation" to dismantle the terror network. The terror network will get dismantled only if there are two choices, either Pakistan dismantles the terror network or we will dismantle it for Pakistan. Without a direct approach, nothing will change.
On a different note, there is only one outcome of over analysis by computer analyst or business application analyst, and that outcome is -war is too "expensive". What about the lives of those 200 people who were killed? Please don't expense those 200 lives and other 100,000 lives in last 10 years by your "over analytical" computer analyst Mircosoft projects approach calculating the "cost of the war". What if it is your father who is targated by the terrorist next, I want to know who all will still run the profit and loss statement if your father is killed by the next strike by the terrorist. Will you only agree to a war when your own family member is killed? Don't you think its time to put the bleeding innocent people ahead of this "over analysis".
We are peace loving people. But should we not respond to the war we did not start. We are not the aggressor, we are the victim here for christ sake.
Wars are decided by brave men, wars are faught by warriors, and wars are won by patriots. Over analysis at the time of war is a sign of weakness - message of Gita. I hope we agree that War is not like a lala shop to prepare a profit & loss statement before making a decision. We did not start this war, it is being forced on us. The question is - should we respond to the war that is forced on us, the war we did not start, but the war which we have the strength to end.
.
hairstyles Post Title → Short Hair Cuts:
unitednations
08-02 10:47 PM
Thanks for your valuable suggestions UN.
So, do you think it's a better to take a letter from the current employer stating that the position will be available at the time of GC approval, just in case?
Also if I start working on EAD before 180 days, will that cause any problems in getting I-485 approval?
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help.
Keep in mind that not many people post all of these issues. People keep these types of rfe's, denials closely guarded. When I used to have my contact info. on the boards; people would call me and discuss with me and I would remember a similar posting. The posting would have been that persons but what they posted had only 10% of the story of what it really was. Point is that people need to educate themselves on these scenarios. At the same time; uscis usually just goes and approves the case by glossing over it and missing it. However, when you get an adjudicator who wants to make a mark for him/herself they may go after these gray areas. I was pretty ignorant about it until my case went for a loop and then I got obsessed with learning these issues.
From a common sense point of view; future base employment or if you leave an employer before 485 is pending for less then 180 days and say you had intent to work with them until 485 was pending for 180 days is pretty much not genuine. However; it is in the law. If uscis sees that you were working with a company and left early and said you were going to return or had intent up until 180 days was over to join them; then they can start going after the intent issue. That is; if you went to self employed, totally different field; made substantially more money and said that you still had intent up until 180 days to join upon greencard approval; then you have to be really careful about it.
Confusion within the law is that ac21 says you can "switch" employers after 180 days. The word "switch" implies that you were in that employment for 180 days and then you changed.
However; uscis clarified in all of the memos that since greencard is future base; there is no standard to even work with the employer until greencard is approved. Since there is no standard to work with them prior to approval then a person could use ac21 to change "intention" after 180 days. However; they always talk about "intent", "bona fide", etc. These words have so much wiggle room for uscis to abuse their powers or make things difficult for you.
If you wanted to be on the safe side, just in case uscis asked then you should get an updated offer letter at the 180 day mark that the job is still open once you get the greencard approved.
So, do you think it's a better to take a letter from the current employer stating that the position will be available at the time of GC approval, just in case?
Also if I start working on EAD before 180 days, will that cause any problems in getting I-485 approval?
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help.
Keep in mind that not many people post all of these issues. People keep these types of rfe's, denials closely guarded. When I used to have my contact info. on the boards; people would call me and discuss with me and I would remember a similar posting. The posting would have been that persons but what they posted had only 10% of the story of what it really was. Point is that people need to educate themselves on these scenarios. At the same time; uscis usually just goes and approves the case by glossing over it and missing it. However, when you get an adjudicator who wants to make a mark for him/herself they may go after these gray areas. I was pretty ignorant about it until my case went for a loop and then I got obsessed with learning these issues.
From a common sense point of view; future base employment or if you leave an employer before 485 is pending for less then 180 days and say you had intent to work with them until 485 was pending for 180 days is pretty much not genuine. However; it is in the law. If uscis sees that you were working with a company and left early and said you were going to return or had intent up until 180 days was over to join them; then they can start going after the intent issue. That is; if you went to self employed, totally different field; made substantially more money and said that you still had intent up until 180 days to join upon greencard approval; then you have to be really careful about it.
Confusion within the law is that ac21 says you can "switch" employers after 180 days. The word "switch" implies that you were in that employment for 180 days and then you changed.
However; uscis clarified in all of the memos that since greencard is future base; there is no standard to even work with the employer until greencard is approved. Since there is no standard to work with them prior to approval then a person could use ac21 to change "intention" after 180 days. However; they always talk about "intent", "bona fide", etc. These words have so much wiggle room for uscis to abuse their powers or make things difficult for you.
If you wanted to be on the safe side, just in case uscis asked then you should get an updated offer letter at the 180 day mark that the job is still open once you get the greencard approved.
rbharol
04-07 04:37 PM
Is IV core planning to get in touch with Compete america to find what they
think about this bill and what is their plan of action?
think about this bill and what is their plan of action?
indianindian2006
02-23 01:18 AM
I think we need to find out rival Anchor/Channel for Lou Doobs and inform him with all the facts.
here is someone who gives the real picture.
http://www.tuftsobserver.org/news/20070223/four_myths_about_immigrat.html
here is someone who gives the real picture.
http://www.tuftsobserver.org/news/20070223/four_myths_about_immigrat.html