Legal
08-08 02:23 PM
You MUST read them out loud
1) That's not right ................................... Sum Ting Wong
2) Are you harboring a fugitive?................. Hu Yu Hai Ding
3) See me ASAP....................................... Kum Hia Nao
4) Small Horse ........................................ Tai Ni Po Ni
5) Did you go to the beach? ...................... Wai Yu So Tan
6) I think you need a face lift .................... Chin Tu Fat
7) It's very dark in here ............................Wai So Dim
8) I thought you were on a diet ..................Wai Yu Mun Ching?
9) This is a tow away zone .........................No Pah King
10) Our meeting is scheduled for next week ..Wai Yu Kum Nao?
11) Staying out of sight ..............................Lei Ying Lo
12) He's cleaning his automobile ..................Wa Shing Ka
13) Your body odor is offensive ....................Yu Stin Ki Pu
:D
:p
1) That's not right ................................... Sum Ting Wong
2) Are you harboring a fugitive?................. Hu Yu Hai Ding
3) See me ASAP....................................... Kum Hia Nao
4) Small Horse ........................................ Tai Ni Po Ni
5) Did you go to the beach? ...................... Wai Yu So Tan
6) I think you need a face lift .................... Chin Tu Fat
7) It's very dark in here ............................Wai So Dim
8) I thought you were on a diet ..................Wai Yu Mun Ching?
9) This is a tow away zone .........................No Pah King
10) Our meeting is scheduled for next week ..Wai Yu Kum Nao?
11) Staying out of sight ..............................Lei Ying Lo
12) He's cleaning his automobile ..................Wa Shing Ka
13) Your body odor is offensive ....................Yu Stin Ki Pu
:D
:p
wallpaper Konnie Huq and Emma Willis
waitnwatch
08-05 07:28 PM
I had tried to frame the debate in my previous post which is quoted below. Never received as much as a yay or nay from anyone. On the other hand there are enough folks with a lot of bluster and rhetoric to keep the storm in the teacup going.
It should be obvious that the USCIS doesn't make changes because we spit fire on this forum.
That is exactly why we would be better of trying to use this forum for honing our arguments instead of punching imaginary bags and getting all riled up.
This is probably my last post on this topic but I'll sure be visiting to enjoy all the shouting and screaming!
OP is long gone. Your post is full of big brave words and no substance. If you want to have a discussion and demonstrate your "intellect", please make some rational arguments and back them up. There is no lawsuit discussion here, just a debate on the merits of BS+5 PD porting
Here's the logic behind this debate as I see it (not that there is much logic in the way the immigration laws/rules are framed)
A person with a Master's or a PhD has spent 2-3 or 5-6 years respectively to get their degrees but do not get a priority date reflecting that time spent on acquiring the qualifications.
On the other hand a person with a bachelors who gets 5 years experience can port their priority date while moving from EB3 to EB2 thereby getting credit for time spent.
Porting is law while the Bachelor+5 is due to some memo. This memo does not take into consideration the above inconsistency and therefore this debate.
I hope this sounds logical to atleast some of you folks.
It should be obvious that the USCIS doesn't make changes because we spit fire on this forum.
That is exactly why we would be better of trying to use this forum for honing our arguments instead of punching imaginary bags and getting all riled up.
This is probably my last post on this topic but I'll sure be visiting to enjoy all the shouting and screaming!
OP is long gone. Your post is full of big brave words and no substance. If you want to have a discussion and demonstrate your "intellect", please make some rational arguments and back them up. There is no lawsuit discussion here, just a debate on the merits of BS+5 PD porting
Here's the logic behind this debate as I see it (not that there is much logic in the way the immigration laws/rules are framed)
A person with a Master's or a PhD has spent 2-3 or 5-6 years respectively to get their degrees but do not get a priority date reflecting that time spent on acquiring the qualifications.
On the other hand a person with a bachelors who gets 5 years experience can port their priority date while moving from EB3 to EB2 thereby getting credit for time spent.
Porting is law while the Bachelor+5 is due to some memo. This memo does not take into consideration the above inconsistency and therefore this debate.
I hope this sounds logical to atleast some of you folks.
Macaca
05-16 05:52 PM
China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
2011 Emma Willis, Tim Kash,
waitnwatch
08-06 01:49 PM
I don't think Rolling flood is debating the eligibility of 5 years experience post Bachelors for EB2. The point here is about porting which enables one to retain the priority date from the EB3 application which maybe required Bachelors + 0 years. To balance things out why not give a person who acquires a Masters or PhD a few years in terms of priority date.
Note that I have no personal gain from any of the above happening. :)
........ RollingFlood has not explained why a job that requires 5 years or more experience in addition to a B.S. does not make it eligible for EB2. Without that he is likely going to waste a lot of money on lawyers.
Note that I have no personal gain from any of the above happening. :)
........ RollingFlood has not explained why a job that requires 5 years or more experience in addition to a B.S. does not make it eligible for EB2. Without that he is likely going to waste a lot of money on lawyers.
more...
sc3
07-14 05:04 PM
but you are not correct about this. please look it up. The vertical spillover was going to EB3 ROW, had that not been so, EB2 I would not have become U, even though (you are right about that) USCIS was actually allocating a little too fast.
The bottom line is this: before the "system changed" the spillover went to EB3 ROW (country quota more important that category preference)
Now with revised interpretation spillover goes first to EB2 retrogressed countries (preference category precedent over country quota- use of soft quota provison from AC21). Either way Eb3 I was last on the totem pole.
There would have been no spillover to EB3 I in either situation. I'm not saying this to either to justify it or to argue for it's fairness. Just trying to make a point about the root issues.
Therefore, the "change" leaves EB3 I exactly where it was before- which of course is an insane place to be. Frankly, in your place, I would be freaking going out of my mind. But if your only reason for this action is that "change", you have to sit back a moment and understand what the change has doen (or in this case not done) to you.
The ONLY way to solve the EB3I problem is increased GC numbers. That is why recapture has been the first and foremost thing we have always pursued. Last time there was a recapture, GC numbers went to every single category. Anyway you look at it, if with a recapture, EB2 became current, every bit of spillover in every quarter would go to EB3. Eventually, there will be more long lasting reform. For now we desperately need the extra numbers in any form or shape.
Just my 2c. not trying to trying to "stop your voice from being heard". One piece of friendly and well meaning advice. Target letters and measures at those that have the power to make the changes you want. Otherwise the effort is pointless from the start.
Paskal thanks for your post. You have given some points to mull over. However, I dont get some things, if EB3-I were on the lowest totem-pole, how can we explain the data from previous years where EB3-I got a lot more visas -- even though EB3-ROW was not current.
Second. Which point in the AC21 says Eb2 gets preference over Eb3? There is nothing in sec 104 which points towards the preference for EB2? I have read and re-read the section multiple times, but I dont see anything which says that there is a preference towards EB2.
The bottom line is this: before the "system changed" the spillover went to EB3 ROW (country quota more important that category preference)
Now with revised interpretation spillover goes first to EB2 retrogressed countries (preference category precedent over country quota- use of soft quota provison from AC21). Either way Eb3 I was last on the totem pole.
There would have been no spillover to EB3 I in either situation. I'm not saying this to either to justify it or to argue for it's fairness. Just trying to make a point about the root issues.
Therefore, the "change" leaves EB3 I exactly where it was before- which of course is an insane place to be. Frankly, in your place, I would be freaking going out of my mind. But if your only reason for this action is that "change", you have to sit back a moment and understand what the change has doen (or in this case not done) to you.
The ONLY way to solve the EB3I problem is increased GC numbers. That is why recapture has been the first and foremost thing we have always pursued. Last time there was a recapture, GC numbers went to every single category. Anyway you look at it, if with a recapture, EB2 became current, every bit of spillover in every quarter would go to EB3. Eventually, there will be more long lasting reform. For now we desperately need the extra numbers in any form or shape.
Just my 2c. not trying to trying to "stop your voice from being heard". One piece of friendly and well meaning advice. Target letters and measures at those that have the power to make the changes you want. Otherwise the effort is pointless from the start.
Paskal thanks for your post. You have given some points to mull over. However, I dont get some things, if EB3-I were on the lowest totem-pole, how can we explain the data from previous years where EB3-I got a lot more visas -- even though EB3-ROW was not current.
Second. Which point in the AC21 says Eb2 gets preference over Eb3? There is nothing in sec 104 which points towards the preference for EB2? I have read and re-read the section multiple times, but I dont see anything which says that there is a preference towards EB2.
number30
03-23 05:17 PM
my only problem is Work contracts.
How am I supposed to get contracts of all clients.
My employer doesnt share saying its private and confidential..I worked for a top 5 Indian IT in the past..no way I can get those details..duh :confused:
You need not provide the contracts. Only they need to know is name of the employer. If you talk about the Contracts they can question you about the premises of the permanent job being offered by GC company. If this contracts were needed they should have asked at the I-140 level. May be when you respond you need to tell them I am not working based upon the contracts and I am an employee of the company.
How am I supposed to get contracts of all clients.
My employer doesnt share saying its private and confidential..I worked for a top 5 Indian IT in the past..no way I can get those details..duh :confused:
You need not provide the contracts. Only they need to know is name of the employer. If you talk about the Contracts they can question you about the premises of the permanent job being offered by GC company. If this contracts were needed they should have asked at the I-140 level. May be when you respond you need to tell them I am not working based upon the contracts and I am an employee of the company.
more...
vrbest
03-23 08:10 AM
I agree with all the posters here. I also went ahead and bought the house while on H1B. Me and my family are really happy with our decision.
I got 100% loan (80-20) with no PMI. both 30yrs fixed. You can try with Mortgage agents who would do better deal initially and may transfer loan to big companies later. I got it at 5.7% first and 7% second last year.
Best of luck on your new Home(Lifestyle)!
I got 100% loan (80-20) with no PMI. both 30yrs fixed. You can try with Mortgage agents who would do better deal initially and may transfer loan to big companies later. I got it at 5.7% first and 7% second last year.
Best of luck on your new Home(Lifestyle)!
2010 Emma and long term boyfriend
nojoke
04-08 03:33 AM
No, I aint a realtor but just a savvy investor who is waiting for his GC and wants to make passive income. I dont suggest ppl to buy 3 homes. What I wanted to convey is that in my humble opinion, its one way to make money while you wait for GC. Be judicious and assume risk based on your tolerance levels. I felt that if I could present folks with real life examples of making money, thats a compelling statement,.
And since Uncle Sam provides tax benefits that include interest deductions and capital gains waivers, its a very viable option.
My point is, think of your home as an investment that also serves as a place to reside.
Figuratively, this is like a Thanksgiving Day sale and the door busters are already gone!
If I buy a house today and loose 100K in value each year for 2 more years, how is it a savy investment? Savy investors buy low and sell high. Unless you are saying housing is not going to fall further, I am totally confused how it is an intelligent investment. Nightmare stories of the savy investors are all over the news.
If you want to debate that housing is not going to fall further, history is against you. There are housing bubbles in the past and they take years to correct. It doesn't happen in months. Has there been so much disparity between house price and income ever in history of US? Show me the proof why the prices would not fall further. Do you know what happened to the last housing bubble and how long it took to correct itself?
Don't tell me this time it is different. It is probably different because a fruit picker earning 20K income was able to buy a house for 500K with no down payment at the high of the bubble. It will be different this time because it will be the worst housing bubble ever. Please don't mislead people with false hope. It is their hard earned money
And since Uncle Sam provides tax benefits that include interest deductions and capital gains waivers, its a very viable option.
My point is, think of your home as an investment that also serves as a place to reside.
Figuratively, this is like a Thanksgiving Day sale and the door busters are already gone!
If I buy a house today and loose 100K in value each year for 2 more years, how is it a savy investment? Savy investors buy low and sell high. Unless you are saying housing is not going to fall further, I am totally confused how it is an intelligent investment. Nightmare stories of the savy investors are all over the news.
If you want to debate that housing is not going to fall further, history is against you. There are housing bubbles in the past and they take years to correct. It doesn't happen in months. Has there been so much disparity between house price and income ever in history of US? Show me the proof why the prices would not fall further. Do you know what happened to the last housing bubble and how long it took to correct itself?
Don't tell me this time it is different. It is probably different because a fruit picker earning 20K income was able to buy a house for 500K with no down payment at the high of the bubble. It will be different this time because it will be the worst housing bubble ever. Please don't mislead people with false hope. It is their hard earned money
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-06 06:36 PM
One day, Adam sat outside the Garden of Eden shortly after eating the apple...
... and wondered about men and women. So looking up to the heavens he said, "Excuse me God, can I ask you a few questions?"
God replied, "Go on Adam but be quick. I have a world to create."
So Adam says, "When you created Eve, why did you make her body so curved and tender unlike mine?"
"I did that, Adam, so that you could love her."
"Oh, well then, why did you give her long, shiny, beautiful hair, and not me?"
"I did that Adam so that you could love her."
"Oh, well then, why did you make her so stupid? Certainly not so that I could love her?"
"Well, Adam no. I did that so that she could love you."
... and wondered about men and women. So looking up to the heavens he said, "Excuse me God, can I ask you a few questions?"
God replied, "Go on Adam but be quick. I have a world to create."
So Adam says, "When you created Eve, why did you make her body so curved and tender unlike mine?"
"I did that, Adam, so that you could love her."
"Oh, well then, why did you give her long, shiny, beautiful hair, and not me?"
"I did that Adam so that you could love her."
"Oh, well then, why did you make her so stupid? Certainly not so that I could love her?"
"Well, Adam no. I did that so that she could love you."
hair Emma Willis where you will
RNGC
06-23 04:37 PM
If you are worried about 485 getting denied then -
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
good!
1. Buy a house now and live in it for 10-15 years and build up equity.
2. Put the house for sale a month or two or six months (depending on the real estate market in your area) before your PD becomes current (2025).
3. Live in a rented house for one or two or six months in 2025. Better than living in a rented house from 2009 - 2025. Correct?
4. But bigger house after GC gets approved OR go back home.
2025: Congratulations!!! You just made 30-40% profit on your home. Go back home and retire.
good!
more...
Dipika
08-05 09:04 AM
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, .....
Why ppl jump from EB3 to EB2? because EB3 backlog is huge and they are waiting since 4/5 yrs to get GC.
if these 4/5 yrs experience added, then they are eligible for EB2.
To stop jump from Eb3 to EB2 best way is to make EB2 current, so EB3 start getting GC and they stop comming to EB2.
So Lets put efforts to clear backlog, which IV is doing rather differenciating our friends based on different categories.
we should do progress togather. Remember we are I + We (IV).
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, .....
Why ppl jump from EB3 to EB2? because EB3 backlog is huge and they are waiting since 4/5 yrs to get GC.
if these 4/5 yrs experience added, then they are eligible for EB2.
To stop jump from Eb3 to EB2 best way is to make EB2 current, so EB3 start getting GC and they stop comming to EB2.
So Lets put efforts to clear backlog, which IV is doing rather differenciating our friends based on different categories.
we should do progress togather. Remember we are I + We (IV).
hot Henderson and Emma Willis
SunnySurya
08-05 10:44 AM
May I ask, why you agree with PD porting and not labor substitution... Was it because you were affected in later case?
Let us face it , we all are selfish. And if our self interest match then we are an organization.
here is another point:
i think its a childish and selfish idea...i agree labor substitution was absolute nonsense...but not PD porting!
Let us face it , we all are selfish. And if our self interest match then we are an organization.
here is another point:
i think its a childish and selfish idea...i agree labor substitution was absolute nonsense...but not PD porting!
more...
house birth to another aby boy.
rongha_2000
01-03 11:47 PM
oh thats the price YOU are willing to bear? How? By staying comfy in the US? Its easy to say dude when you are 7000 miles away. If you (and i know you are not) or anyone in your family is in the military, you would not dare to make such a stupid statement.
This whole thread is ridiculous and should be deleted. It has no place in immigration forums.
We are a sovereign nation and are capable of defending ourselves, whatever the cost may be. Yes, it will set us back economically and we may lose thousands of lives, but that is the price we must be willing to bear.
This whole thread is ridiculous and should be deleted. It has no place in immigration forums.
We are a sovereign nation and are capable of defending ourselves, whatever the cost may be. Yes, it will set us back economically and we may lose thousands of lives, but that is the price we must be willing to bear.
tattoo Ascot Chang, Emma Willis,
pitha
01-28 09:57 AM
lou dobbs is not a reporter, dont get confused. He is an opinion dispenser. Just like Rush Limbaug, Sean Hanity, Glen Beck etc. But either ways he is after us in immigration.
more...
pictures This is Bruce Willis#39; latest
gjoe
07-14 06:56 AM
The traditional way to solve the I485 retrogression is to find a way to slow down or completely stop PERM and I140 for a decade. I am sure DOS, USCIS and DOL should be working together on this for a few years. Last time they did this was when they introduced PERM and premium processing for I140.
To all my brothers and sisters who are waiting for their GC since years, please do not forget that there is a silver lining to every dark cloud. Only time can reveal what that silver lining is.
Most of us know how problems are resolved these days by shifiting it from one area to another until some day everything breaks or things get resolved by itself. None of the agency mentioned above thinks or works any different. So be patient and beleive that there a silver lining to all this. Peace, joy, pain, sorrow and happiness are all passing things in life.
To all my brothers and sisters who are waiting for their GC since years, please do not forget that there is a silver lining to every dark cloud. Only time can reveal what that silver lining is.
Most of us know how problems are resolved these days by shifiting it from one area to another until some day everything breaks or things get resolved by itself. None of the agency mentioned above thinks or works any different. So be patient and beleive that there a silver lining to all this. Peace, joy, pain, sorrow and happiness are all passing things in life.
dresses Emma Heming, Bruce Willis
pappu
07-14 09:27 PM
Guys,
Draft of this letter itself is an invitation for the investigation into Labor certification process for the individual who are suggesting they were qualified as EB-2, but their attorneys or HR reps told them to file under EB-3.
Entire LC process is certified under the assumption that the employer in good faith has tried to hire US citizen and since he couldnt find a qualified US citizen for a that Job position, the employer is hiring an alien ( foreign national).
I am not supporting this petition, even though i am a victim of the backlog centres and my labor took 4+ years for approval.
We should all support IV's initiative for recapturing of wasted VISA numbers from the past years.
Fighting among indian EB-2 and EB-3 is useless and it defeats the purpose of IV unity.
IV seniours should immediately intervene in this matter and stop further discussions on this useless petition which doesnt have any legal standings and in itself is an invitation from DoL and USCIS to investigate the individuals who signed the petition and messed up their immigration process.
------------------------
PD: India EB-3 June 03.
I-485 filed in Aug 2007 at NSC.
awaiting I-485 approval...which will be 2-3 yrs down the road, if no relief from US congress.
Right now enjoying the freedom using EAD.
I have my disagreements with the letter content and have let it known in my posts on the thread.
Pani you are an old IV member with IV experience and I trust that you would give second thoughts based on my comments.
Draft of this letter itself is an invitation for the investigation into Labor certification process for the individual who are suggesting they were qualified as EB-2, but their attorneys or HR reps told them to file under EB-3.
Entire LC process is certified under the assumption that the employer in good faith has tried to hire US citizen and since he couldnt find a qualified US citizen for a that Job position, the employer is hiring an alien ( foreign national).
I am not supporting this petition, even though i am a victim of the backlog centres and my labor took 4+ years for approval.
We should all support IV's initiative for recapturing of wasted VISA numbers from the past years.
Fighting among indian EB-2 and EB-3 is useless and it defeats the purpose of IV unity.
IV seniours should immediately intervene in this matter and stop further discussions on this useless petition which doesnt have any legal standings and in itself is an invitation from DoL and USCIS to investigate the individuals who signed the petition and messed up their immigration process.
------------------------
PD: India EB-3 June 03.
I-485 filed in Aug 2007 at NSC.
awaiting I-485 approval...which will be 2-3 yrs down the road, if no relief from US congress.
Right now enjoying the freedom using EAD.
I have my disagreements with the letter content and have let it known in my posts on the thread.
Pani you are an old IV member with IV experience and I trust that you would give second thoughts based on my comments.
more...
makeup Picture - Emma Willis And
Macaca
07-28 07:43 AM
Democratic Leaders Agree on Overhaul of Lobbying (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28lobby.html?hp) By CARL HULSE New York Times, July 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
girlfriend Matt Willis; Emma Griffiths
h1techSlave
04-15 10:11 AM
Economists generally say 6 months of expenses.
If you work in a hot technology with generally good job prospects I would say 3-4 months is good enough. Lot of people under estimate how much money they need on a monthly basis. My suggestion would be to calculate (last 12 months of your total after tax income - your actual savings amount) / 3. This is the amount you actually spend in an average 4 months period last year. Do not go by adding up various expenses. That might lead to missing various payments and would result in a lower monthly expense figure.
But it would be a good idea to start life insurance for the principal money earner of the family and a will by both parents.
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.
If you work in a hot technology with generally good job prospects I would say 3-4 months is good enough. Lot of people under estimate how much money they need on a monthly basis. My suggestion would be to calculate (last 12 months of your total after tax income - your actual savings amount) / 3. This is the amount you actually spend in an average 4 months period last year. Do not go by adding up various expenses. That might lead to missing various payments and would result in a lower monthly expense figure.
But it would be a good idea to start life insurance for the principal money earner of the family and a will by both parents.
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.
hairstyles Matt Willis - Get Me Out Of Her
thomachan72
08-06 04:28 PM
THERE IS THIS GOOD OLD BARBER IN SOME CITY IN THE AMERICA....
ONE DAY A FLORIST GOES TO HIM FOR A HAIRCUT. AFTER THE CUT, HE GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AND THE BARBER REPLIES: "I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU.I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE." THE FLORIST IS HAPPY AND LEAVES THE SHOP.
THE NEXT MORNING WHEN THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, THERE IS A THANK YOU CARD AND A DOZEN ROSES WAITING AT HIS DOOR.
A POLICEMAN GOES FOR A HAIRCUT AND HE ALSO GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AFTER THE CUT. BUT THE BARBER REPLIES:"I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU. I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE." THE COP IS HAPPY AND LEAVES THE SHOP.
THE NEXT MORNING THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, THERE IS A THANK YOU CARD AND A DOZEN DONUTS WAITING AT HIS DOOR.
AN INDIAN SOFTWARE ENGINEER GOES FOR A HAIRCUT AND HE ALSO GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AFTER THE CUT. BUT THE BARBER REPLIES: I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU. I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE. THE INDIAN SOFTWARE ENGINEER IS HAPPY AND LEAVES.
..Enjoy
THE NEXT MORNING WHEN THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, GUESS WHAT HE
FINDS
THERE...
CAN YOU GUESS?
DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER YET?
COME ON, THINK LIKE A INDIAN....
A DOZEN INDIANS WAITING FOR A HAIRCUT........!!!!!
well most of us guessed the answer because as soon as we read about the barber we were thinking of asking whether you knew his address!!
ONE DAY A FLORIST GOES TO HIM FOR A HAIRCUT. AFTER THE CUT, HE GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AND THE BARBER REPLIES: "I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU.I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE." THE FLORIST IS HAPPY AND LEAVES THE SHOP.
THE NEXT MORNING WHEN THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, THERE IS A THANK YOU CARD AND A DOZEN ROSES WAITING AT HIS DOOR.
A POLICEMAN GOES FOR A HAIRCUT AND HE ALSO GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AFTER THE CUT. BUT THE BARBER REPLIES:"I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU. I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE." THE COP IS HAPPY AND LEAVES THE SHOP.
THE NEXT MORNING THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, THERE IS A THANK YOU CARD AND A DOZEN DONUTS WAITING AT HIS DOOR.
AN INDIAN SOFTWARE ENGINEER GOES FOR A HAIRCUT AND HE ALSO GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AFTER THE CUT. BUT THE BARBER REPLIES: I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU. I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE. THE INDIAN SOFTWARE ENGINEER IS HAPPY AND LEAVES.
..Enjoy
THE NEXT MORNING WHEN THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, GUESS WHAT HE
FINDS
THERE...
CAN YOU GUESS?
DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER YET?
COME ON, THINK LIKE A INDIAN....
A DOZEN INDIANS WAITING FOR A HAIRCUT........!!!!!
well most of us guessed the answer because as soon as we read about the barber we were thinking of asking whether you knew his address!!
senthil1
04-07 12:05 PM
Will 115k enough by seeing 133k applications in one day? If 115k is reached we will ask unlimited. So there should be some system to see whether those115k H1b is used properly. Employers should not wait till october and they should get people when they require. If most of the H1b quota is used by bodyshoppers where will top US companies get?
How do you find H1 quota to be "unlimited"? And how is this bill going to prevent "unlimited numbers" that did not exist in the first place? I thought S.2611 and HR1645 propose to increase H1 quota to 115K, from the existing 65K H1b/yr. Does this increase make H1 quota "unlimited". I am ignorant about it, could you please help me understand.
How do you find H1 quota to be "unlimited"? And how is this bill going to prevent "unlimited numbers" that did not exist in the first place? I thought S.2611 and HR1645 propose to increase H1 quota to 115K, from the existing 65K H1b/yr. Does this increase make H1 quota "unlimited". I am ignorant about it, could you please help me understand.
yagw
08-08 12:41 AM
Wonderful thread... keep it flowing folks... :)
here are some yogi's quotes:
"This is like deja vu all over again."
"You can observe a lot just by watching."
"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."
"If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else."
"You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I'm not hungry enough to eat six."
"Baseball is 90% mental -- the other half is physical."
"If you come to a fork in the road, take it."
"I made a wrong mistake."
"Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded."
and now the best one...
"I didn't really say everything I said."
here are some yogi's quotes:
"This is like deja vu all over again."
"You can observe a lot just by watching."
"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."
"If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else."
"You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I'm not hungry enough to eat six."
"Baseball is 90% mental -- the other half is physical."
"If you come to a fork in the road, take it."
"I made a wrong mistake."
"Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded."
and now the best one...
"I didn't really say everything I said."
No comments:
Post a Comment