gimme_GC2006
03-25 04:08 PM
I do not understand either...OP says he/she does not want to spend a grand (not sure if it costs that much) in attorney fees while he is willing to spend time/money trying to immigrate to Alberta. Taking a fatalistic approach and hoping for the best seems to be the idea. Again good luck to OP.
lol...you are right..
but dont know... I am going by hunch..I hope not to regret..:)
lol...you are right..
but dont know... I am going by hunch..I hope not to regret..:)
wallpaper images february 2012 calendar
nk2006
10-07 11:40 AM
Asain-Americans seems to favor Obama overwhelmingly as per this survey. its interesting to read the survey - these immigrants who have gone thru the process themselves and might have friends/relatives in the process - didnt mention immigration as one of their important topic to decide on the vote. Understandably economy is the top topic but was expecting to see immigration atleast behind economy.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44144
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44144
GCNaseeb
08-02 07:34 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.
Once 485 is filed then you are authorized to stay in USA. If you want to work then you can use EAD; if you want to go in/out of USA then you need advance parole.
At the same time you can have h-1b.
Both things allow you to stay here.
Now; once 485 is filed; you do not need to comply with the terms and conditions of your non immigrant status. However; you shouldn't start working with another employer until you have EAD.
Technically; you could sit at home and do nothing; as long as you have intent to work with the employer until 485 is pending for more then six months and employer doesn't pull the plug before 180 days then you would be fine.
You could try to convert the h-1b to part time or transfer to another company.
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
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.
Once 485 is filed then you are authorized to stay in USA. If you want to work then you can use EAD; if you want to go in/out of USA then you need advance parole.
At the same time you can have h-1b.
Both things allow you to stay here.
Now; once 485 is filed; you do not need to comply with the terms and conditions of your non immigrant status. However; you shouldn't start working with another employer until you have EAD.
Technically; you could sit at home and do nothing; as long as you have intent to work with the employer until 485 is pending for more then six months and employer doesn't pull the plug before 180 days then you would be fine.
You could try to convert the h-1b to part time or transfer to another company.
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
2011 Friday 10th February 2012
gcgreen
08-06 01:03 PM
Excellent point.
Here is the relevant portion from 8 C.P.R. � 204.5(k)(2). This is the reason, in my opinion, why any lawsuit against BS+5 has not much merit value.
...
(2) Definitions. As used in this section:
Advanced degree
means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree.
======================================
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
Here is the relevant portion from 8 C.P.R. � 204.5(k)(2). This is the reason, in my opinion, why any lawsuit against BS+5 has not much merit value.
...
(2) Definitions. As used in this section:
Advanced degree
means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree.
======================================
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
more...
chanduv23
03-24 10:55 AM
A lot of the list and questions that you are being asked is what department of labor asks when they are investigating possible h-1b violations. What they have asked you is usually in those types of investigations.
There is a lot of things going on behind the scenes that many people are not aware of or totally clueless to.
Many people are trying to make the GC easier for themselves whereas the real focus should be a defensive measure.
Right now;
VERMONT SERVICE CENTER is denying many, many h-1b's. These h-1b's are for companies who file greencards. If they are assessing that these companies do not have temporary jobs that require a degree then do you not think it is going to gravitate towards employment base greencards?
They are figuring out through requesting of payroll records, w'2's, consulate denials, etc., that many, many people never joined companies; didn't get paid, transferred to other companies shortly upon arrival.
It looks like USCIS/DOL have gone to zero tolerance and have devised ways to pierce through favorable rules protecting immigrant wannabe's.
They pierce through 245k by going through possible immigration fraud by listing employment in the g-325a when a person didn't get paid and may not have had employer/employee relationship (i have actually seen this where USCIS cited possible immigration fraud due to this issue to trump 245k).
USCIS is starting to challenge companies whether they have permanent jobs instead of temporary jobs; which looks like where this particular OP is going to go through. If they determine the job is temporary then that is going to spell doom for the EB greencard for him.
People decided they were going to poke USCIS and take complaints to senators/congressmen (whom you all think are your friends but many of you do not realize that they are not your friends) and now everyong is going to see how the system in this country works. We are currently in a new day and age with immigration. Everyone should buckle their seat belts as this is going to be a real bumpy ride.
UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
There is a lot of things going on behind the scenes that many people are not aware of or totally clueless to.
Many people are trying to make the GC easier for themselves whereas the real focus should be a defensive measure.
Right now;
VERMONT SERVICE CENTER is denying many, many h-1b's. These h-1b's are for companies who file greencards. If they are assessing that these companies do not have temporary jobs that require a degree then do you not think it is going to gravitate towards employment base greencards?
They are figuring out through requesting of payroll records, w'2's, consulate denials, etc., that many, many people never joined companies; didn't get paid, transferred to other companies shortly upon arrival.
It looks like USCIS/DOL have gone to zero tolerance and have devised ways to pierce through favorable rules protecting immigrant wannabe's.
They pierce through 245k by going through possible immigration fraud by listing employment in the g-325a when a person didn't get paid and may not have had employer/employee relationship (i have actually seen this where USCIS cited possible immigration fraud due to this issue to trump 245k).
USCIS is starting to challenge companies whether they have permanent jobs instead of temporary jobs; which looks like where this particular OP is going to go through. If they determine the job is temporary then that is going to spell doom for the EB greencard for him.
People decided they were going to poke USCIS and take complaints to senators/congressmen (whom you all think are your friends but many of you do not realize that they are not your friends) and now everyong is going to see how the system in this country works. We are currently in a new day and age with immigration. Everyone should buckle their seat belts as this is going to be a real bumpy ride.
UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
alisa
01-04 05:35 PM
No body is going to be caught and there is going to be another attack in India and then the Bombay will become the past and we need to forget the past and we have to start all over again.
Then you would probably be right, that this is the active policy of Pakistan, and I would probably be wrong, that these are non-state actors that are the remnants of the past.
Then you would probably be right, that this is the active policy of Pakistan, and I would probably be wrong, that these are non-state actors that are the remnants of the past.
more...
abracadabra102
08-06 05:00 PM
Stroustrup C++ 'interview'
On the 1st of January, 1998, Bjarne Stroustrup gave an interview to the IEEE's Computer magazine. Naturally, the editors thought he would be giving a retrospective view of seven years of object-oriented design, using the language he created. By the end of the interview, the interviewer got more than he had bargained for and, subsequently, the editor decided to suppress its contents, 'for the good of the industry' but, as with many of these things, there was a leak. Here is a complete transcript of what was was said, unedited, and unrehearsed, so it isn't as neat as planned interviews. You will find it interesting...
Interviewer: Well, it's been a few years since you changed the world of software design, how does it feel, looking back?
Stroustrup: Actually, I was thinking about those days, just before you arrived. Do you remember? Everyone was writing 'C' and, the trouble was, they were pretty damn good at it. Universities got pretty good at teaching it, too. They were turning out competent - I stress the word 'competent' - graduates at a phenomenal rate. That's what caused the problem.
Interviewer: Problem?
Stroustrup: Yes, problem. Remember when everyone wrote Cobol?
Interviewer: Of course, I did too
Stroustrup: Well, in the beginning, these guys were like demi-gods. Their salaries were high, and they were treated like royalty.
Interviewer: Those were the days, eh?
Stroustrup: Right. So what happened? IBM got sick of it, and invested millions in training programmers, till they were a dime a dozen.
Interviewer: That's why I got out. Salaries dropped within a year, to the point where being a journalist actually paid better.
Stroustrup: Exactly. Well, the same happened with 'C' programmers.
Interviewer: I see, but what's the point?
Stroustrup: Well, one day, when I was sitting in my office, I thought of this little scheme, which would redress the balance a little. I thought 'I wonder what would happen, if there were a language so complicated, so difficult to learn, that nobody would ever be able to swamp the market with programmers? Actually, I got some of the ideas from X10, you know, X windows. That was such a bitch of a graphics system, that it only just ran on those Sun 3/60 things. They had all the ingredients for what I wanted. A really ridiculously complex syntax, obscure functions, and pseudo-OO structure. Even now, nobody writes raw X-windows code. Motif is the only way to go if you want to retain your sanity.
Interviewer: You're kidding...?
Stroustrup: Not a bit of it. In fact, there was another problem. Unix was written in 'C', which meant that any 'C' programmer could very easily become a systems programmer. Remember what a mainframe systems programmer used to earn?
Interviewer: You bet I do, that's what I used to do.
Stroustrup: OK, so this new language had to divorce itself from Unix, by hiding all the system calls that bound the two together so nicely. This would enable guys who only knew about DOS to earn a decent living too.
Interviewer: I don't believe you said that...
Stroustrup: Well, it's been long enough, now, and I believe most people have figured out for themselves that C++ is a waste of time but, I must say, it's taken them a lot longer than I thought it would.
Interviewer: So how exactly did you do it?
Stroustrup: It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought people would take the book seriously. Anyone with half a brain can see that object-oriented programming is counter-intuitive, illogical and inefficient.
Interviewer: What?
Stroustrup: And as for 're-useable code' - when did you ever hear of a company re-using its code?
Interviewer: Well, never, actually, but...
Stroustrup: There you are then. Mind you, a few tried, in the early days. There was this Oregon company - Mentor Graphics, I think they were called - really caught a cold trying to rewrite everything in C++ in about '90 or '91. I felt sorry for them really, but I thought people would learn from their mistakes.
Interviewer: Obviously, they didn't?
Stroustrup: Not in the slightest. Trouble is, most companies hush-up all their major blunders, and explaining a $30 million loss to the shareholders would have been difficult. Give them their due, though, they made it work in the end.
Interviewer: They did? Well, there you are then, it proves O-O works.
Stroustrup: Well, almost. The executable was so huge, it took five minutes to load, on an HP workstation, with 128MB of RAM. Then it ran like treacle. Actually, I thought this would be a major stumbling-block, and I'd get found out within a week, but nobody cared. Sun and HP were only too glad to sell enormously powerful boxes, with huge resources just to run trivial programs. You know, when we had our first C++ compiler, at AT&T, I compiled 'Hello World', and couldn't believe the size of the executable. 2.1MB
Interviewer: What? Well, compilers have come a long way, since then.
Stroustrup: They have? Try it on the latest version of g++ - you won't get much change out of half a megabyte. Also, there are several quite recent examples for you, from all over the world. British Telecom had a major disaster on their hands but, luckily, managed to scrap the whole thing and start again. They were luckier than Australian Telecom. Now I hear that Siemens is building a dinosaur, and getting more and more worried as the size of the hardware gets bigger, to accommodate the executables. Isn't multiple inheritance a joy?
Interviewer: Yes, but C++ is basically a sound language.
Stroustrup: You really believe that, don't you? Have you ever sat down and worked on a C++ project? Here's what happens: First, I've put in enough pitfalls to make sure that only the most trivial projects will work first time. Take operator overloading. At the end of the project, almost every module has it, usually, because guys feel they really should do it, as it was in their training course. The same operator then means something totally different in every module. Try pulling that lot together, when you have a hundred or so modules. And as for data hiding. God, I sometimes can't help laughing when I hear about the problems companies have making their modules talk to each other. I think the word 'synergistic' was specially invented to twist the knife in a project manager's ribs.
Interviewer: I have to say, I'm beginning to be quite appalled at all this. You say you did it to raise programmers' salaries? That's obscene.
Stroustrup: Not really. Everyone has a choice. I didn't expect the thing to get so much out of hand. Anyway, I basically succeeded. C++ is dying off now, but programmers still get high salaries - especially those poor devils who have to maintain all this crap. You do realise, it's impossible to maintain a large C++ software module if you didn't actually write it?
On the 1st of January, 1998, Bjarne Stroustrup gave an interview to the IEEE's Computer magazine. Naturally, the editors thought he would be giving a retrospective view of seven years of object-oriented design, using the language he created. By the end of the interview, the interviewer got more than he had bargained for and, subsequently, the editor decided to suppress its contents, 'for the good of the industry' but, as with many of these things, there was a leak. Here is a complete transcript of what was was said, unedited, and unrehearsed, so it isn't as neat as planned interviews. You will find it interesting...
Interviewer: Well, it's been a few years since you changed the world of software design, how does it feel, looking back?
Stroustrup: Actually, I was thinking about those days, just before you arrived. Do you remember? Everyone was writing 'C' and, the trouble was, they were pretty damn good at it. Universities got pretty good at teaching it, too. They were turning out competent - I stress the word 'competent' - graduates at a phenomenal rate. That's what caused the problem.
Interviewer: Problem?
Stroustrup: Yes, problem. Remember when everyone wrote Cobol?
Interviewer: Of course, I did too
Stroustrup: Well, in the beginning, these guys were like demi-gods. Their salaries were high, and they were treated like royalty.
Interviewer: Those were the days, eh?
Stroustrup: Right. So what happened? IBM got sick of it, and invested millions in training programmers, till they were a dime a dozen.
Interviewer: That's why I got out. Salaries dropped within a year, to the point where being a journalist actually paid better.
Stroustrup: Exactly. Well, the same happened with 'C' programmers.
Interviewer: I see, but what's the point?
Stroustrup: Well, one day, when I was sitting in my office, I thought of this little scheme, which would redress the balance a little. I thought 'I wonder what would happen, if there were a language so complicated, so difficult to learn, that nobody would ever be able to swamp the market with programmers? Actually, I got some of the ideas from X10, you know, X windows. That was such a bitch of a graphics system, that it only just ran on those Sun 3/60 things. They had all the ingredients for what I wanted. A really ridiculously complex syntax, obscure functions, and pseudo-OO structure. Even now, nobody writes raw X-windows code. Motif is the only way to go if you want to retain your sanity.
Interviewer: You're kidding...?
Stroustrup: Not a bit of it. In fact, there was another problem. Unix was written in 'C', which meant that any 'C' programmer could very easily become a systems programmer. Remember what a mainframe systems programmer used to earn?
Interviewer: You bet I do, that's what I used to do.
Stroustrup: OK, so this new language had to divorce itself from Unix, by hiding all the system calls that bound the two together so nicely. This would enable guys who only knew about DOS to earn a decent living too.
Interviewer: I don't believe you said that...
Stroustrup: Well, it's been long enough, now, and I believe most people have figured out for themselves that C++ is a waste of time but, I must say, it's taken them a lot longer than I thought it would.
Interviewer: So how exactly did you do it?
Stroustrup: It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought people would take the book seriously. Anyone with half a brain can see that object-oriented programming is counter-intuitive, illogical and inefficient.
Interviewer: What?
Stroustrup: And as for 're-useable code' - when did you ever hear of a company re-using its code?
Interviewer: Well, never, actually, but...
Stroustrup: There you are then. Mind you, a few tried, in the early days. There was this Oregon company - Mentor Graphics, I think they were called - really caught a cold trying to rewrite everything in C++ in about '90 or '91. I felt sorry for them really, but I thought people would learn from their mistakes.
Interviewer: Obviously, they didn't?
Stroustrup: Not in the slightest. Trouble is, most companies hush-up all their major blunders, and explaining a $30 million loss to the shareholders would have been difficult. Give them their due, though, they made it work in the end.
Interviewer: They did? Well, there you are then, it proves O-O works.
Stroustrup: Well, almost. The executable was so huge, it took five minutes to load, on an HP workstation, with 128MB of RAM. Then it ran like treacle. Actually, I thought this would be a major stumbling-block, and I'd get found out within a week, but nobody cared. Sun and HP were only too glad to sell enormously powerful boxes, with huge resources just to run trivial programs. You know, when we had our first C++ compiler, at AT&T, I compiled 'Hello World', and couldn't believe the size of the executable. 2.1MB
Interviewer: What? Well, compilers have come a long way, since then.
Stroustrup: They have? Try it on the latest version of g++ - you won't get much change out of half a megabyte. Also, there are several quite recent examples for you, from all over the world. British Telecom had a major disaster on their hands but, luckily, managed to scrap the whole thing and start again. They were luckier than Australian Telecom. Now I hear that Siemens is building a dinosaur, and getting more and more worried as the size of the hardware gets bigger, to accommodate the executables. Isn't multiple inheritance a joy?
Interviewer: Yes, but C++ is basically a sound language.
Stroustrup: You really believe that, don't you? Have you ever sat down and worked on a C++ project? Here's what happens: First, I've put in enough pitfalls to make sure that only the most trivial projects will work first time. Take operator overloading. At the end of the project, almost every module has it, usually, because guys feel they really should do it, as it was in their training course. The same operator then means something totally different in every module. Try pulling that lot together, when you have a hundred or so modules. And as for data hiding. God, I sometimes can't help laughing when I hear about the problems companies have making their modules talk to each other. I think the word 'synergistic' was specially invented to twist the knife in a project manager's ribs.
Interviewer: I have to say, I'm beginning to be quite appalled at all this. You say you did it to raise programmers' salaries? That's obscene.
Stroustrup: Not really. Everyone has a choice. I didn't expect the thing to get so much out of hand. Anyway, I basically succeeded. C++ is dying off now, but programmers still get high salaries - especially those poor devils who have to maintain all this crap. You do realise, it's impossible to maintain a large C++ software module if you didn't actually write it?
2010 February
satishku_2000
08-03 05:05 PM
What exactly is the difference between current and future employments in the context of Perm labor certification and 485. I have seen people using two things interchangeably to suit their arguments. In context of finding ability to pay is there a difference in the way adjudicator looks at two things?
more...
unitednations
07-08 10:41 AM
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.
The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
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.
The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
hair December 2010-February
NKR
09-26 09:34 AM
Hello there,
highly skilled immigrants have a buying power
Thanks
Yes, that is why they have allowed you to keep renewing your H1s and/or EADs so that you can keep buying. They will not give you GC soon
highly skilled immigrants have a buying power
Thanks
Yes, that is why they have allowed you to keep renewing your H1s and/or EADs so that you can keep buying. They will not give you GC soon
more...
Macaca
12-27 08:16 PM
How Republicans prevailed on the Hill (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/531oekhp.asp) By Whitney Blake | The Weekly Standard, 12/27/2007
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
hot girlfriend february 2012
delax
07-14 10:14 AM
Eb2- I people are wrong when they think any steps taken by EB3-I are because of jealousy. I have contributed in each of IV effort knowing fully well that Eb3I is not going to be benefited by the effort. Still someone was getting the benefit. Now if EB3I want to do something, what is the issue? If a person from Eb2I with PD of 2006 feels that the reason behind efforts taken by a EB3 I person with PD of 2001/2002 is jealousy, then the EB2I person is being very narrow in his/her thinking. It should not take a huge amount of brainpower to realize the frustration and sadness the EB3 I person would be feeling. Irrespective of this I think a lot of people who contribute to IV campaigns are EB3I.
Everyone irrespective of what category he or she is would very easily realize that Eb3I needs help, else it is going nowhere. By reading comments in this thread, my fear is coming true that the help needed may not come from IV. Once all EB2 people get their GC, there would be no further fight for EB3.
Sure EB3-I needs help, but if the help is in the form of taking numbers away from EB2 and giving them to EB3 just based on the length of wait, then I have my serious objections to this proposal. I have said openly that I will object to it - I have never seen a post that says plainly - Yes EB3-I is stuck for 7-8 years and therefore they want numbers from EB2 because EB2 has moved ahead by 2 years. The irony is that all earlier posts imply this and talk about this request for handover in a very general way (75/25 break up, recession, lawyer input, etc).
Visa recapture, country cap elimination is where the solution lies. That is the REAL help that EB3-Retro wants. Any short term fix purely out of sympathy, empathy, humanity, kindness is not recogniszed by law.
I know people will pile on for speaking plainly and in a matter of fact manner, but I am amazed at the innuendo, implications and lack of straight talk.
Everyone irrespective of what category he or she is would very easily realize that Eb3I needs help, else it is going nowhere. By reading comments in this thread, my fear is coming true that the help needed may not come from IV. Once all EB2 people get their GC, there would be no further fight for EB3.
Sure EB3-I needs help, but if the help is in the form of taking numbers away from EB2 and giving them to EB3 just based on the length of wait, then I have my serious objections to this proposal. I have said openly that I will object to it - I have never seen a post that says plainly - Yes EB3-I is stuck for 7-8 years and therefore they want numbers from EB2 because EB2 has moved ahead by 2 years. The irony is that all earlier posts imply this and talk about this request for handover in a very general way (75/25 break up, recession, lawyer input, etc).
Visa recapture, country cap elimination is where the solution lies. That is the REAL help that EB3-Retro wants. Any short term fix purely out of sympathy, empathy, humanity, kindness is not recogniszed by law.
I know people will pile on for speaking plainly and in a matter of fact manner, but I am amazed at the innuendo, implications and lack of straight talk.
more...
house and ends in February 2012
BharatPremi
03-28 05:50 PM
Bharatpremi - Thanks for yr earlier reply and for yr optimistic EB3 (I) predictions in other threads.
--------
here are the details about housing demand ..now that the bubble has burst with huge inventory still remaining ..it is difficult to see from where the (genuine) demand will come ..speculators and flippers are badly burnt ..This is from MSN money.
--
this country's median income of roughly $49,000 can hardly be expected to service the debt of the median home price of $234,000, up from approximately $160,000 in 2000.
Let's do a little math. Forty-nine thousand dollars in yearly income leaves approximately $35,000 in after-tax dollars. Call it $3,000 a month. A 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage would cost approximately $1,500 per month. That leaves only $1,500 a month for a family to pay for everything else! (Of course, in many communities the math is even less tenable.) This is the crux of the problem, and the government cannot fix it.
Housing prices, thanks to the bubble and inflation, have risen well past the point where the median (or typical middle-class) family can afford them. Either income must rise -- which seems unlikely on an inflated-adjusted basis -- or home prices must come down.
This whole thing is a set conspiracy for the benefit of 5% . My biggest surprise is that nobody is asking a simple question: Why the hell traditional mortgages are designed for 30 years/40 years? Why not for 5 years and at the most for 10 years? If you might have seen your county record, you will see land cost is always a bear cheap against your total purchase price. Now you also know that construction cost is not that great too.
If you would have built that home by your self , you could built it at very reasonable price. So what is driving us nuts is the addition of "passive" amount which we call "market".. Now this "passive" insertion is designed for "Government" + " Lenders" + " realtors"--- and for their benefit you throughout your damn life end up paying mortgage. As long as the concept of "investment" and "profiteering" will be associated with housing you will see thousands of families get shattered for the benefit of some hundreds of families.
And you are seeing the effect. Government is out to save Bear Stern's as* but is not yet out to save millions of families.:mad:
Example: $ 500,000/- purchase price (3000 sq ft single family home)
Land cost: 80,000/- ( defined by county - assessment record)
Construction cost: 1,40,000/- (If you do home work you can easily
derive current construction cost)
Let's say you give the order to somebody to construct: Add his 25%
profit which is reasonable)
The real cost is 255000. If a man with median income of $ 49,000/- wants to buy a home he will still be able to do that with all happiness if government enforces some limit say for an example 5-10% "passive" margin on top of this actual current cost for these sharks. But now in today's world you would be paying this large "passive" difference so your lender, realtor and government become fat and you end up working your ass of for 30 years to pay it off.
The beauty is that everybody is doing that and government has authorized it so it is legitimate. Basically this whole damn system corner the money to 5% people and I am not ready to tell that a capitalism. "Dacoits rule the city of theives."
--------
here are the details about housing demand ..now that the bubble has burst with huge inventory still remaining ..it is difficult to see from where the (genuine) demand will come ..speculators and flippers are badly burnt ..This is from MSN money.
--
this country's median income of roughly $49,000 can hardly be expected to service the debt of the median home price of $234,000, up from approximately $160,000 in 2000.
Let's do a little math. Forty-nine thousand dollars in yearly income leaves approximately $35,000 in after-tax dollars. Call it $3,000 a month. A 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage would cost approximately $1,500 per month. That leaves only $1,500 a month for a family to pay for everything else! (Of course, in many communities the math is even less tenable.) This is the crux of the problem, and the government cannot fix it.
Housing prices, thanks to the bubble and inflation, have risen well past the point where the median (or typical middle-class) family can afford them. Either income must rise -- which seems unlikely on an inflated-adjusted basis -- or home prices must come down.
This whole thing is a set conspiracy for the benefit of 5% . My biggest surprise is that nobody is asking a simple question: Why the hell traditional mortgages are designed for 30 years/40 years? Why not for 5 years and at the most for 10 years? If you might have seen your county record, you will see land cost is always a bear cheap against your total purchase price. Now you also know that construction cost is not that great too.
If you would have built that home by your self , you could built it at very reasonable price. So what is driving us nuts is the addition of "passive" amount which we call "market".. Now this "passive" insertion is designed for "Government" + " Lenders" + " realtors"--- and for their benefit you throughout your damn life end up paying mortgage. As long as the concept of "investment" and "profiteering" will be associated with housing you will see thousands of families get shattered for the benefit of some hundreds of families.
And you are seeing the effect. Government is out to save Bear Stern's as* but is not yet out to save millions of families.:mad:
Example: $ 500,000/- purchase price (3000 sq ft single family home)
Land cost: 80,000/- ( defined by county - assessment record)
Construction cost: 1,40,000/- (If you do home work you can easily
derive current construction cost)
Let's say you give the order to somebody to construct: Add his 25%
profit which is reasonable)
The real cost is 255000. If a man with median income of $ 49,000/- wants to buy a home he will still be able to do that with all happiness if government enforces some limit say for an example 5-10% "passive" margin on top of this actual current cost for these sharks. But now in today's world you would be paying this large "passive" difference so your lender, realtor and government become fat and you end up working your ass of for 30 years to pay it off.
The beauty is that everybody is doing that and government has authorized it so it is legitimate. Basically this whole damn system corner the money to 5% people and I am not ready to tell that a capitalism. "Dacoits rule the city of theives."
tattoo dresses February 2012 Calendar
amoljak
07-10 09:14 AM
Did anybody contradict this caller on the show? Is the recorded show available online?
more...
pictures Feb 2012 - Derrick Casey
gc28262
03-24 04:01 PM
Ofcourse I am unbias.
I can't even begin to think how many people I know; cases I know from people who are from india.
I'd say that it is less then 3% from people with other countries.
As another poster rightly said that many of the issues happening is mainly to India because it takes so long to get the greencard and eventually everyone gets into these issues.
Non indians don't face many issues because they get the greencard so fast; and hence they go through very little issues (generally). If other countires had to wait so long then everyone would also have similar types of issues.
Since most of the forums are related to IT and Indians then if I ever broach on something a little negative or give different perspective then people look at my profile and see I was born in Pakistan and think there is some bias there.
btw; I left when I was five years old and hardly knew any pakistanis/indians when I was growing up and for what it is worth my wife is Hindu.
Thanks.
I guess you are right. The long wait times for Indians should be one of the reason.
The other one I think is, you typically deal with problematic cases. Simple ones will just pass through without much intervention from lawyers/experts like you.
Also one has to take into account the number of H1B applicants from India. As majority of IT folks come from India there is higher probability that there will be more problematic cases from this larger sample.
I can't even begin to think how many people I know; cases I know from people who are from india.
I'd say that it is less then 3% from people with other countries.
As another poster rightly said that many of the issues happening is mainly to India because it takes so long to get the greencard and eventually everyone gets into these issues.
Non indians don't face many issues because they get the greencard so fast; and hence they go through very little issues (generally). If other countires had to wait so long then everyone would also have similar types of issues.
Since most of the forums are related to IT and Indians then if I ever broach on something a little negative or give different perspective then people look at my profile and see I was born in Pakistan and think there is some bias there.
btw; I left when I was five years old and hardly knew any pakistanis/indians when I was growing up and for what it is worth my wife is Hindu.
Thanks.
I guess you are right. The long wait times for Indians should be one of the reason.
The other one I think is, you typically deal with problematic cases. Simple ones will just pass through without much intervention from lawyers/experts like you.
Also one has to take into account the number of H1B applicants from India. As majority of IT folks come from India there is higher probability that there will be more problematic cases from this larger sample.
dresses 2011 2012 February Calendar
sledge_hammer
03-24 04:11 PM
>>>>Why don't you give me the proof that ALL consulting companies are not complying.
The fact that most of the companies that USCIS is coming after are desi consulting companies proves that MOST desi comapanies are corrupt. There you have your proof.
And I have not seenn any non-desi company use the "bench". Since you support your desi company, tell me how many non desi consulting companies don't pay their employees on bench?
Answer the above question before calling me ignorant.
P.S: And when did I say that non desi consulting companies don't have to comply with USCIS rules???
1. Why don't you give me the proof that ALL consulting companies are not complying. You are the one who is making the argument. Do you have any statistics to prove that ? Do you know all the consulting companies in US ? Do you know all the companies that directly hire H1 ? Do you know their compliance statistics ?
2. Did I say any of these are legal ? If a company applies for H1B, the company has to comply with the requirements of the law. It is that simple. It doesn't matter whether it is a consulting company or a direct placement.
The fact that most of the companies that USCIS is coming after are desi consulting companies proves that MOST desi comapanies are corrupt. There you have your proof.
And I have not seenn any non-desi company use the "bench". Since you support your desi company, tell me how many non desi consulting companies don't pay their employees on bench?
Answer the above question before calling me ignorant.
P.S: And when did I say that non desi consulting companies don't have to comply with USCIS rules???
1. Why don't you give me the proof that ALL consulting companies are not complying. You are the one who is making the argument. Do you have any statistics to prove that ? Do you know all the consulting companies in US ? Do you know all the companies that directly hire H1 ? Do you know their compliance statistics ?
2. Did I say any of these are legal ? If a company applies for H1B, the company has to comply with the requirements of the law. It is that simple. It doesn't matter whether it is a consulting company or a direct placement.
more...
makeup February), 2012 Edition
nogc_noproblem
08-28 10:09 PM
Pray for Wisdom:
A PRAYER Dear Lord,
I pray for Wisdom to understand my man;
Love to forgive him;
And Patience for his moods.
Because, Lord, if I pray for Strength,
I'll beat him to death.
AMEN
A PRAYER Dear Lord,
I pray for Wisdom to understand my man;
Love to forgive him;
And Patience for his moods.
Because, Lord, if I pray for Strength,
I'll beat him to death.
AMEN
girlfriend FEBRUARY 2012
niklshah
07-13 09:29 PM
I hope you get your GC soon. As for me its 'wait until dark'. It'll come some day.
And NO I am not an IT EB2. I am a non-STEM MBA in Finance who does not pratice engineering anymore.
you did not get my post...last thing we want is silly argument regarding EB2 and EB3................
And NO I am not an IT EB2. I am a non-STEM MBA in Finance who does not pratice engineering anymore.
you did not get my post...last thing we want is silly argument regarding EB2 and EB3................
hairstyles JANUARY 2012 I FEBRUARY 2012 I
unitednations
03-26 04:42 PM
UnitedNations
What I take from your reply is that if the company is on their radar (for reasons that they will never disclose or we will never know - but we can assume some kind of fraudulent activity - like what you suggest too many h1's etc) they can (and currently are for h1 applications) apply all of their might to deny applications.
Most of us have become pompous and are living in a big bubble. We think that since we pay taxes we are special. I cant imagine how out of touch with reality we are ....when I see postings like these for example remove EB1/EB2/EB3..whatever classification quota since we "the special class" of people are suffering, remove per country limit since we have paid taxes for 10 years, we will solve the housing crisis if we get gc's, we are responsible for creating innovation, progress and jobs (though i agree small percentage of the total pool may well be responsible for some innovation but not all), we are some sort of super humans , calling up senators/congressman - wont they be more interested in protecting their constituent's -- who I hate to say is not us (that is would be immigrants)
Isn't it time for everyone to wake up and see the reality ? Why exacerbate the current conditions that will create even a bigger backlash? can we all handle that ? I think the answer is NO
Legal base employment candidates never had any representation as far as I know of until Immigration voice was formed. The other groups had some organized activity.
From some of the postings I have seen from IV Core; I believe they know what they are doing. They seem to be getting right advice of when to go on offensive and when to be defensive.
It is difficult for candidates/people who only have five to six years of history in this country to know how the system works here; ie., what arguments work and what arguments don't and what other side will do in ruining your credibility if they are pushed.
Everyone wants their greencard and they try to find reasons which they think others will appreciate (whether they have much merit or not).
What I take from your reply is that if the company is on their radar (for reasons that they will never disclose or we will never know - but we can assume some kind of fraudulent activity - like what you suggest too many h1's etc) they can (and currently are for h1 applications) apply all of their might to deny applications.
Most of us have become pompous and are living in a big bubble. We think that since we pay taxes we are special. I cant imagine how out of touch with reality we are ....when I see postings like these for example remove EB1/EB2/EB3..whatever classification quota since we "the special class" of people are suffering, remove per country limit since we have paid taxes for 10 years, we will solve the housing crisis if we get gc's, we are responsible for creating innovation, progress and jobs (though i agree small percentage of the total pool may well be responsible for some innovation but not all), we are some sort of super humans , calling up senators/congressman - wont they be more interested in protecting their constituent's -- who I hate to say is not us (that is would be immigrants)
Isn't it time for everyone to wake up and see the reality ? Why exacerbate the current conditions that will create even a bigger backlash? can we all handle that ? I think the answer is NO
Legal base employment candidates never had any representation as far as I know of until Immigration voice was formed. The other groups had some organized activity.
From some of the postings I have seen from IV Core; I believe they know what they are doing. They seem to be getting right advice of when to go on offensive and when to be defensive.
It is difficult for candidates/people who only have five to six years of history in this country to know how the system works here; ie., what arguments work and what arguments don't and what other side will do in ruining your credibility if they are pushed.
Everyone wants their greencard and they try to find reasons which they think others will appreciate (whether they have much merit or not).
wc_user
04-14 07:09 PM
We are looking to buy a house and the bank is asking us to put down 10%. How much money is considered safe to have after down-payment if we are buying a home. I know it depends on the situation, but I would like some estimates/ball-park figures.
Administrator2
04-06 07:47 PM
Green card is for convenience – H-1B status is for survival!!!!
As you already know that anti-H1B lobby has introduced a bill that is designed to put most H-1B dependent employers out of business and most H-1B employees out of the country. This bill is designed to slow bleed H-1B program and systematically purge H-1B employees from the country.
If we cannot stay in the US on H-1, then there is no possibility of a green card.
Details of the discriminatory and impractical Senate bill
Here is the link to bill summary:
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/Analysis_S1035.pdf
Please see section 2(e) and section 2(f)
Here is the link to bill test:
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/Durbin_Grassley_bill.pdf
The original intent of Senate bill S.1035 seems to be to put in checks and balances on H-1B and L-1 program, with inclusion of some good provisions to empower H-1B/L-1 employees. Immigration Voice supports provisions to empower H-1B/L-1 employees. However, S.1035 is discriminatory against H-1B employees and H-1B dependent employers. The bill is designed to render H-1B program useless and impractical to follow. As an example: Even after going through the process of making sure that no able, qualified and willing person in US is available to do the specific job, “the best and the brightest” H-1B employees will not be allowed to do any Consulting!!!!
Further, US business will not be bale to have more than 50% of their employees on H-1B. Some of these companies to very specialized research, development and consulting work. In effect, Senate bill S.1035 is forcing the companies manufacturing baby soap, tissue paper etc to drop their core competency to become experts in the sectors/areas where consultants provide their expertise to assist companies to successes.
This discriminatory bill will have following effects:
1.) This bill will hurt all sectors of the US economy, directly and indirectly.
2.) In the short term, most H-1B employees (including medical doctors, research scientist, IT engineers and other highly skilled immigrants) providing consulting services will have to leave the country, thereby taking all the institutional knowledge to other countries.
3.) In the long term, the bill is designed to promote outsourcing as most employers will be left with no other option but to look outside to find much needed human capital and talent. So this bill hurts competitiveness and is bad for US innovation and economy.
Timeline and Urgency of this massive issue
This bill is a VERY REAL threat. It is designed to be made part of the compressive immigration reform bill (CIR). We have learnt that CIR is on the US Senate schedule for the last two weeks of May and, in the House schedule for the month of July. So if we do not educate the lawmakers about this very real threat to the core concept of competitiveness and innovation, this discriminatory bill could become law as early as August of this year.
What we have to do
1.) This bill is discriminatory and puts unworkable restrictions on H-1B program. Please join Immigration Voice to oppose this bill in its current form.
2.) Join Immigration Voice's efforts to oppose the bill S.1035 and educate the lawmakers to pass meaningful comprehensive immigration reform containing the provisions to end the massive employment based green card backlog.
3.) If you are employee, employer or a lawyer, please take this threat very seriously and inform your organization, employer, colleagues, friends or anybody whom you feel should know about this discriminatory bill. Please request everybody to visit www.ImmigrationVoice.org (http://www.ImmigrationVoice.org) frequently for the latest action items and updates.
4.) Please contribute to Immigration Voice TODAY and please send out SOS message to you friends, colleagues and employers to contribute and support Immigration Voice. We have very limited resources and desperately need everybody’s support.
Please standby for more information and action items.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is going to be no difference whether you ...
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
Hopefully, this will answer some of the questions.
As you already know that anti-H1B lobby has introduced a bill that is designed to put most H-1B dependent employers out of business and most H-1B employees out of the country. This bill is designed to slow bleed H-1B program and systematically purge H-1B employees from the country.
If we cannot stay in the US on H-1, then there is no possibility of a green card.
Details of the discriminatory and impractical Senate bill
Here is the link to bill summary:
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/Analysis_S1035.pdf
Please see section 2(e) and section 2(f)
Here is the link to bill test:
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/Durbin_Grassley_bill.pdf
The original intent of Senate bill S.1035 seems to be to put in checks and balances on H-1B and L-1 program, with inclusion of some good provisions to empower H-1B/L-1 employees. Immigration Voice supports provisions to empower H-1B/L-1 employees. However, S.1035 is discriminatory against H-1B employees and H-1B dependent employers. The bill is designed to render H-1B program useless and impractical to follow. As an example: Even after going through the process of making sure that no able, qualified and willing person in US is available to do the specific job, “the best and the brightest” H-1B employees will not be allowed to do any Consulting!!!!
Further, US business will not be bale to have more than 50% of their employees on H-1B. Some of these companies to very specialized research, development and consulting work. In effect, Senate bill S.1035 is forcing the companies manufacturing baby soap, tissue paper etc to drop their core competency to become experts in the sectors/areas where consultants provide their expertise to assist companies to successes.
This discriminatory bill will have following effects:
1.) This bill will hurt all sectors of the US economy, directly and indirectly.
2.) In the short term, most H-1B employees (including medical doctors, research scientist, IT engineers and other highly skilled immigrants) providing consulting services will have to leave the country, thereby taking all the institutional knowledge to other countries.
3.) In the long term, the bill is designed to promote outsourcing as most employers will be left with no other option but to look outside to find much needed human capital and talent. So this bill hurts competitiveness and is bad for US innovation and economy.
Timeline and Urgency of this massive issue
This bill is a VERY REAL threat. It is designed to be made part of the compressive immigration reform bill (CIR). We have learnt that CIR is on the US Senate schedule for the last two weeks of May and, in the House schedule for the month of July. So if we do not educate the lawmakers about this very real threat to the core concept of competitiveness and innovation, this discriminatory bill could become law as early as August of this year.
What we have to do
1.) This bill is discriminatory and puts unworkable restrictions on H-1B program. Please join Immigration Voice to oppose this bill in its current form.
2.) Join Immigration Voice's efforts to oppose the bill S.1035 and educate the lawmakers to pass meaningful comprehensive immigration reform containing the provisions to end the massive employment based green card backlog.
3.) If you are employee, employer or a lawyer, please take this threat very seriously and inform your organization, employer, colleagues, friends or anybody whom you feel should know about this discriminatory bill. Please request everybody to visit www.ImmigrationVoice.org (http://www.ImmigrationVoice.org) frequently for the latest action items and updates.
4.) Please contribute to Immigration Voice TODAY and please send out SOS message to you friends, colleagues and employers to contribute and support Immigration Voice. We have very limited resources and desperately need everybody’s support.
Please standby for more information and action items.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is going to be no difference whether you ...
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
Hopefully, this will answer some of the questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment