Macaca
02-22 11:39 AM
Lou Dobbs makes 6+ Mils and gives his opinions on the best news network at close to prime time. We are rotting in retrogression. Most of us are tiger on IV forums but can not even wimper on non-IV forums.
The utility of these opinions on IV forums is debatable, at best. However, It will help us if we can convince others that they are not getting the facts from Lou Dobbs and give them the facts.
Please post fact based opinions at non-IV forums.
The utility of these opinions on IV forums is debatable, at best. However, It will help us if we can convince others that they are not getting the facts from Lou Dobbs and give them the facts.
Please post fact based opinions at non-IV forums.
wallpaper Demi Moore, Jennifer Aniston
sledge_hammer
12-17 04:14 PM
I too will post something funny :)
<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3VJrXo5zGNk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3VJrXo5zGNk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>
<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3VJrXo5zGNk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3VJrXo5zGNk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>
prioritydate
09-27 06:55 PM
I wish Mc Cain to win this election. Republican party is good to India, pro-life, do not waste money and support same sex domestic partners. Their moral and cultural values are good. They do not increase taxes. Good for Industry.
I will support the party not the candidates. They are good for the security for the country. Terrorist are increased in all over the world. But no more attack on American soil. Clinton ignored the security of the country and we saw what happened. That time IT revolution happened. Not because of him the economic bubble occured. But it will happen, if any body is in power that time.
Do you what you are talking about? One more term for GOP is a disaster. McCain would do nothing but spending more money on Iraq. There is no policy for John McCain. His only aim to continue Iraq war for 4 more years, and if possible, another four more years. They DON'T support same sex marriages. Remember! they are conservatives for God's sake. Republican party is good for oil companies and big corporates. For normal people like us, and specially for an immigration community, it would be an irreversible damage.
I will support the party not the candidates. They are good for the security for the country. Terrorist are increased in all over the world. But no more attack on American soil. Clinton ignored the security of the country and we saw what happened. That time IT revolution happened. Not because of him the economic bubble occured. But it will happen, if any body is in power that time.
Do you what you are talking about? One more term for GOP is a disaster. McCain would do nothing but spending more money on Iraq. There is no policy for John McCain. His only aim to continue Iraq war for 4 more years, and if possible, another four more years. They DON'T support same sex marriages. Remember! they are conservatives for God's sake. Republican party is good for oil companies and big corporates. For normal people like us, and specially for an immigration community, it would be an irreversible damage.
2011 Former Friends star Jennifer
lfwf
08-06 02:50 PM
But you see, what YOU think RollingFlood wants cannot be achieved through a lawsuit. From what I and pretty much most of us understand from the letter of the law is that it allows for earliest priority date. A lawsuit cannot change the law. Also remember that GCs in the employment based category are given based on SPONSORSHIP by an employer. So an EB3 got an earlier priority date based on a labor petition that existed at some earlier period in time when RollingFlood, I, and plenty of others decided we wanted to get a PhD instead. That was OUR choice.
Also, this is a free country. People who are really committed to get an advanced degree, can enroll in graduate school part time, which is what many people I know did. They hopped onto the GC line as EB3 and went to grad school part time. Some now have graduate degrees from places like Stanford.
Also note that the law accounts for really smart people to be unfettered by allowing for things such as EB2 National Interest Waiver and EB1 exceptional ability.
To say that just because someone was doing a PhD and therefore needs to get an earlier priority date that accounts for their graduate program is, to say the least, weird. It is mixing up the employment based system with a merit based system. In fact, one could argue a merit based system should not have any notion of priority dates whatsoever!
Also, just like you, I have no personal gain from this, one way or the other :-)
I have desisted from posting here because all people do is give hystero-emotonal resposnses ranging from "advanced degree means nothing in law' to "his parents must have waived him goodbye". However recently I see some sane posts that actually consider the issues rather than the rhetoric and I feel constrained to point out that you are wrong.
1. I cannot judge the merits of a lawsuit but the "equivelance" of an advanced degree is set at 5 years by regulation not law. That can be challenged in court. Again- I don't know if it will be thrown out, but it can be challenged all right. It would satisfy the goal of OP, whose primary grouse was with people who do not qualify initially for EB2, using the 5 years to both jump to EB2 and preserve their PD.
2. The employment based system is actually stratified by "merit" or" "level of job difficulty" (rightly or wrongly so- that's a separate issue). So they are not different things. The preference categories are set up so that it's easist to qualify for EB3 and toughest for EB1. Therefore the jump that BS +5 takes to EB2 already gives them the advantage of a better cut off date in a smaller category. The PD porting magnifies that to the extent that genuine (adding this to avoid renewed attacks on the terrible things EB2 folks do to qualify) original EB2 filers are left at a huge disadvantage. I asked repeatedly why people who spent the same years getting adavanced education should be left behind. No one addressed that, instead gave me alternative sob stories about being wrongly placed in EB3. Two wrongs do not make a right! And I (at least) am not challenging the rights of people who initially could have qualified for an EB2 to port.
And if its a free country OP has every right to question the regulation. Why have fits over it? How about analysing the issue itself instead and figuring out it's strengths and weaknesses? Do you think USCIS or Congress care that your attorney "made you file EB3"?
3. EB2 NIW still gives you a PD only AFTER you complete your advanced education and prove yourself exceptional. Still the same EB2 line. EB1 similarly gives you a PD much later- of course for now it does not matter since its current- if it backlogs, expect the same questions from them.
I fear this thread is fodder for anti immigrants. Virtually every EB3 here has questioned "most EB2's" classification and accused all of us of some kind of fraud. Really guys, be ashamed.
Also, this is a free country. People who are really committed to get an advanced degree, can enroll in graduate school part time, which is what many people I know did. They hopped onto the GC line as EB3 and went to grad school part time. Some now have graduate degrees from places like Stanford.
Also note that the law accounts for really smart people to be unfettered by allowing for things such as EB2 National Interest Waiver and EB1 exceptional ability.
To say that just because someone was doing a PhD and therefore needs to get an earlier priority date that accounts for their graduate program is, to say the least, weird. It is mixing up the employment based system with a merit based system. In fact, one could argue a merit based system should not have any notion of priority dates whatsoever!
Also, just like you, I have no personal gain from this, one way or the other :-)
I have desisted from posting here because all people do is give hystero-emotonal resposnses ranging from "advanced degree means nothing in law' to "his parents must have waived him goodbye". However recently I see some sane posts that actually consider the issues rather than the rhetoric and I feel constrained to point out that you are wrong.
1. I cannot judge the merits of a lawsuit but the "equivelance" of an advanced degree is set at 5 years by regulation not law. That can be challenged in court. Again- I don't know if it will be thrown out, but it can be challenged all right. It would satisfy the goal of OP, whose primary grouse was with people who do not qualify initially for EB2, using the 5 years to both jump to EB2 and preserve their PD.
2. The employment based system is actually stratified by "merit" or" "level of job difficulty" (rightly or wrongly so- that's a separate issue). So they are not different things. The preference categories are set up so that it's easist to qualify for EB3 and toughest for EB1. Therefore the jump that BS +5 takes to EB2 already gives them the advantage of a better cut off date in a smaller category. The PD porting magnifies that to the extent that genuine (adding this to avoid renewed attacks on the terrible things EB2 folks do to qualify) original EB2 filers are left at a huge disadvantage. I asked repeatedly why people who spent the same years getting adavanced education should be left behind. No one addressed that, instead gave me alternative sob stories about being wrongly placed in EB3. Two wrongs do not make a right! And I (at least) am not challenging the rights of people who initially could have qualified for an EB2 to port.
And if its a free country OP has every right to question the regulation. Why have fits over it? How about analysing the issue itself instead and figuring out it's strengths and weaknesses? Do you think USCIS or Congress care that your attorney "made you file EB3"?
3. EB2 NIW still gives you a PD only AFTER you complete your advanced education and prove yourself exceptional. Still the same EB2 line. EB1 similarly gives you a PD much later- of course for now it does not matter since its current- if it backlogs, expect the same questions from them.
I fear this thread is fodder for anti immigrants. Virtually every EB3 here has questioned "most EB2's" classification and accused all of us of some kind of fraud. Really guys, be ashamed.
more...
![jennifer aniston in leather jacket. Aw, look at all of Jennifer Aniston#39;s old faces! [CityRag]](http://www.celebitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/fp_7569713_trg_momsentaylor_concert_07_09.jpg "Aw, look at all of Jennifer Aniston#39;s old faces! [CityRag]")
ganguteli
03-24 03:29 PM
UN,
I can't help asking this.
I have been following your posts for a while. I know you are quite knowledgeable in immigration.
But many of your posts indicate you have a bias against Indians. You seem to be going hard against H1B and saying Indians are screwing H1Bs.
I like to believe you are unbiased. Please let us know.
Do you disagree about Indians?
Indians are in majority. Indians do most consulting. Indians did most sub labor. Indians are the ones getting caught in raids. So there is your proof.
But the problem is USCIS and lawmakers are not interested in solving the problem. They only want to punish. Punishing is not a solution.
I disagree with UN that enough is being done against illegals or against consulting. If ICE was rounding up illegals every week, you will not be seeing so much illegal problem. Likewise if USCIS was alert on labor substitution, consulting, lawyer-employer nexus, employee abuse, we will not be seeing so much mess.
I can't help asking this.
I have been following your posts for a while. I know you are quite knowledgeable in immigration.
But many of your posts indicate you have a bias against Indians. You seem to be going hard against H1B and saying Indians are screwing H1Bs.
I like to believe you are unbiased. Please let us know.
Do you disagree about Indians?
Indians are in majority. Indians do most consulting. Indians did most sub labor. Indians are the ones getting caught in raids. So there is your proof.
But the problem is USCIS and lawmakers are not interested in solving the problem. They only want to punish. Punishing is not a solution.
I disagree with UN that enough is being done against illegals or against consulting. If ICE was rounding up illegals every week, you will not be seeing so much illegal problem. Likewise if USCIS was alert on labor substitution, consulting, lawyer-employer nexus, employee abuse, we will not be seeing so much mess.
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
more...
xyzgc
12-30 12:25 AM
at the risk of adding to this "no longer relevant" thread - there is a huge difference between US and India gaining independence.....in case of the former - it was some Britishers now settled in America fighting other Britishers (loyalists to the throne) for autonomy and independence......
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
The British colonized the world using advanced weaponry, superior discipline, organized chain of commands within the forces, isolationist tactics, ground battle strategies and naval warfare.
They came in as East India company traders, fought several battles and eventually defeated several Indian Kings to establish themselves as colonial masters.
It is, therefore, naive to say that wars are won without firing a bullet.
If non-violence could stop wars, India would not been colonized by the imperialists to begin with.
Had Indians had gone up in united and organized arms revolt against the British, the British would not have lasted five years in India.
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
The British colonized the world using advanced weaponry, superior discipline, organized chain of commands within the forces, isolationist tactics, ground battle strategies and naval warfare.
They came in as East India company traders, fought several battles and eventually defeated several Indian Kings to establish themselves as colonial masters.
It is, therefore, naive to say that wars are won without firing a bullet.
If non-violence could stop wars, India would not been colonized by the imperialists to begin with.
Had Indians had gone up in united and organized arms revolt against the British, the British would not have lasted five years in India.
2010 Jennifer Aniston vs Angelina
panky72
08-09 02:00 AM
Just ignore those useless weeds (who don�t know what �joke� means), not only in this thread, even in real life also.
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
:)Thanks nogc_noproblem. BTW where do you find so many funny jokes:D
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
:)Thanks nogc_noproblem. BTW where do you find so many funny jokes:D
more...
maddipati1
03-23 03:08 PM
Did you send Seinfeld a royalty? :D
-a
cheers
-a
cheers
hair Jennifer Aniston was spotted
alterego
07-13 02:09 PM
Having a cut off date of April or Dec 2001 for the past few years is as good as VISA being unavailable. So India EB3 was unavailable for the last 3 years or so (except last july).
That's not the case with EB2. EB2 on paper has preference, I agree. That does not mean EB2 should have ALL spill over numbers. Split it 75-25 if not 50-50. Dec 2001 for a retrogressed country is just unfair. When you issue some EB2 2006 numbers issue some to EB3 2002 people as well. Is it too much?
Fairness is not what this is about. That is the whole issue. Is it fair that EB2 India has been waiting for years while EB2ROW has been current? Is it fair EB1 is over supplied with visas while EB2 India even EB2NIW was left heavily retrogressed? Worse yet, is it fair that the USCIS interpreted the law wrongly and gave visas to EB3ROW at the expense of EB2I? Was Labor Subs. Fair?
It is not about fair my friend. I am not unsympathetic to your plea for more EB3I relief. There absolutely should be some, and through a legislative fix. However the executive branch of Gov't has to implement the law as it stands.
That's not the case with EB2. EB2 on paper has preference, I agree. That does not mean EB2 should have ALL spill over numbers. Split it 75-25 if not 50-50. Dec 2001 for a retrogressed country is just unfair. When you issue some EB2 2006 numbers issue some to EB3 2002 people as well. Is it too much?
Fairness is not what this is about. That is the whole issue. Is it fair that EB2 India has been waiting for years while EB2ROW has been current? Is it fair EB1 is over supplied with visas while EB2 India even EB2NIW was left heavily retrogressed? Worse yet, is it fair that the USCIS interpreted the law wrongly and gave visas to EB3ROW at the expense of EB2I? Was Labor Subs. Fair?
It is not about fair my friend. I am not unsympathetic to your plea for more EB3I relief. There absolutely should be some, and through a legislative fix. However the executive branch of Gov't has to implement the law as it stands.
more...
engineer
01-03 12:31 AM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan�s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government�s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India�s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a �limited war�.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of �limited war�. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian�s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the �poison pill� defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country�s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan�s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that �could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.� More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan�s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government�s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India�s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a �limited war�.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of �limited war�. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian�s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the �poison pill� defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country�s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan�s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that �could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.� More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
hot Aw, look at all of Jennifer Aniston#39;s old faces! [CityRag]
kumarc123
01-03 09:55 PM
Guys you all re incredible with your perspectives on the subject WAR
I have a golden question
Does it help our immigration situation? I am sure there are people in INDIA and PAKISTAN to take take care of that
WAR DOES NOT HELP ANYONE<
Please I request you all to focus on the upcoming rally, it is not about Indians or Pakistanis in this country, we all have a bigger problem of our immigration system that is effecting our and our family's problems.
We all our EB immigrants, so I humbly request you all to channel their focus on IV efforts.
Thank uoi
I have a golden question
Does it help our immigration situation? I am sure there are people in INDIA and PAKISTAN to take take care of that
WAR DOES NOT HELP ANYONE<
Please I request you all to focus on the upcoming rally, it is not about Indians or Pakistanis in this country, we all have a bigger problem of our immigration system that is effecting our and our family's problems.
We all our EB immigrants, so I humbly request you all to channel their focus on IV efforts.
Thank uoi
more...
house black leather jacket and
pointlesswait
01-06 05:19 PM
this is to
who ever gave me this comment: "why don't you grow up and take this discussion elsewhere?"
i didnt start this..u DF..
who ever gave me this comment: "why don't you grow up and take this discussion elsewhere?"
i didnt start this..u DF..
tattoo Jennifer Aniston in Leather
spicy_guy
09-19 07:53 PM
hi
they are taking social security, medicare taxes. while we are not getting any benefit out of it. they must stop taking social. they are taking this taxes based on that they will give us permanent status. now they have delayed process near to impossible for EB-3.
Intent of social security and medicare is to support social security benefits, but when they are not granting any of this benefit they should stop taking it from us or should make green card processing faster.
they should clarify this situation since they are taking money from us.
hetal shah
hetalvn@yahoo.com
You will reap the benefits when you retire. Not now
they are taking social security, medicare taxes. while we are not getting any benefit out of it. they must stop taking social. they are taking this taxes based on that they will give us permanent status. now they have delayed process near to impossible for EB-3.
Intent of social security and medicare is to support social security benefits, but when they are not granting any of this benefit they should stop taking it from us or should make green card processing faster.
they should clarify this situation since they are taking money from us.
hetal shah
hetalvn@yahoo.com
You will reap the benefits when you retire. Not now
more...
pictures Jennifer Aniston was spotted
gc28262
12-19 10:31 PM
sriramkalyan,
I find it irritating that every now and then, some tom dick and harry comes to these forms and say - "time to close down" whenever you see something that you don't like. Frankly, this shallow view and negative attitude is irritating.
Sanju,
Your posts are definitely interesting. Please start a blog. We all will be happy to read it there. We should not post non-immigration related stuff on IV (especially those that are controversial). As for IV, unity is more important than freedom of speech.
So I agree with sriramkalyan, threads such as these should be closed.
I find it irritating that every now and then, some tom dick and harry comes to these forms and say - "time to close down" whenever you see something that you don't like. Frankly, this shallow view and negative attitude is irritating.
Sanju,
Your posts are definitely interesting. Please start a blog. We all will be happy to read it there. We should not post non-immigration related stuff on IV (especially those that are controversial). As for IV, unity is more important than freedom of speech.
So I agree with sriramkalyan, threads such as these should be closed.
dresses rad pitt jennifer aniston
Ramba
08-05 02:28 PM
Good points, but let me put a counter argument. Two people , one is named SunnySurya and the other is named Mr XYZ. Both came to the USA at the same time in 1999. The difference was SunnySurya came here for his masters and the other guy came here through shady means.
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
Agree. Like labor subsitution scandal/abuse, you should have a documenterly evidence to go after this scam (creating duplicate EB2 job just to cut-short the line). If it is a USCIS rule, they may ripoff this ( like labor sub.). It is long way to go. The nut shell-- as long us GC is in high demand, people abuse the system. DOL, USCIS, knows this. Thatswhy DOL is auditing most EB2 labor certification. In my view, who ever filed EB2 between 2000 to 2004 (when EB3 was current) are true-EB2. After 2005, most of the EB2 filings are cut-short the EB3 que. Most of the cases not based on actual MINIMUM requirements for the job. Everyone knows this..
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
Agree. Like labor subsitution scandal/abuse, you should have a documenterly evidence to go after this scam (creating duplicate EB2 job just to cut-short the line). If it is a USCIS rule, they may ripoff this ( like labor sub.). It is long way to go. The nut shell-- as long us GC is in high demand, people abuse the system. DOL, USCIS, knows this. Thatswhy DOL is auditing most EB2 labor certification. In my view, who ever filed EB2 between 2000 to 2004 (when EB3 was current) are true-EB2. After 2005, most of the EB2 filings are cut-short the EB3 que. Most of the cases not based on actual MINIMUM requirements for the job. Everyone knows this..
more...
makeup Jennifer Aniston#39;s 10 Dating
vghc
01-06 06:22 PM
India has legitimate reason to attack pakistan or any terrorist camps in and out of pakistan. But our spineless leaders couldn't take any action on that. Its a shame on our leadership.
But Palestine is not like that. They are fighting for their right. Have you ever seen or heard about how people in palestin live their day to day life? How many check points they have to cross before crossing a mile? How much time they spend waiting on each crossing?
Don't you think they also deserve dignity? Don't you think they also live in peace and harmony? Don't you know their desperate situation? There's no electricity, no clean water, no drianage, nothing. Whole country is like a big prison. They are going thru this hardship for several decades. Everything was destroyed by the brutal force.
Then why don't you quit your job not and fly over there to help them?
Voicing your opinions here won't make them feel any safer.
The world is a mess up place, most of us here can't even get our bloody greencards after years of waiting.
But Palestine is not like that. They are fighting for their right. Have you ever seen or heard about how people in palestin live their day to day life? How many check points they have to cross before crossing a mile? How much time they spend waiting on each crossing?
Don't you think they also deserve dignity? Don't you think they also live in peace and harmony? Don't you know their desperate situation? There's no electricity, no clean water, no drianage, nothing. Whole country is like a big prison. They are going thru this hardship for several decades. Everything was destroyed by the brutal force.
Then why don't you quit your job not and fly over there to help them?
Voicing your opinions here won't make them feel any safer.
The world is a mess up place, most of us here can't even get our bloody greencards after years of waiting.
girlfriend Who made Jennifer Aniston#39;s suede purse and black leather jacket that she
GCBatman
01-06 01:04 PM
Please provide proof(example) to support your allegation that "IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam"
If this forum is strictly for immigration, then we wouldn't have allowed members to discuss anything other than immigration.
But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?
If this forum is strictly for immigration, then we wouldn't have allowed members to discuss anything other than immigration.
But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?
hairstyles Jennifer Aniston fashion- Tom
gc4me
12-17 03:57 PM
Is it 200 not 2000 :D
People like Antulay are real traitors of India. Who know they may be taking instructions from Pakistan ISI? Such people go unpunish is the main reason India was slave for 2000 years.
People like Antulay are real traitors of India. Who know they may be taking instructions from Pakistan ISI? Such people go unpunish is the main reason India was slave for 2000 years.
logiclife
02-21 11:16 AM
Today, Lou Dobbs has written on more article.
This time, Lou Dobbs is having a lot of admiration and good words to say about.....guess what ...LOU DOBBS.
Yes, Lou Dobbs loves Lou Dobbs. He has created a whole new class of people in this country. He says that there are 150 million "Lou Dobbs Democrats" in the country the no ones knows about.
Read the whole article here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/Dobbs.February21/index.html)
Excerpts of Lou Dobbs talking about how great and popular Lou Dobbs is...
The ascension of the so-called Lou Dobbs Democrats in the November election gave hope to many that our representatives and senators were awakening to the need to represent the largest single group of voters in the country, 150 million working men and women and their families.
--Lou Dobbs, Feb 21 2007.
The Democratic Leadership Council is obviously frightened that my brand of independent populism is a threat.
--Lou Dobbs again, on Feb 21 2007, when absolutely in awe of Lou Dobbs.
I call that independent populism, not neo-populism. And I also call that truth.
--Lou Dobbs, calling Lou Dobbs an INDEPENDENT populist while writing a column praising Lou Dobbs.
In the case of the Democratic Party, there seems to be a rising fear that more Lou Dobbs Democrats are on the way and are going to demand truth over slogans and an improving reality for working men and women rather than ideological posturing that will salve the corporate masters of both parties.
--Lou Dobbs, describing the Lou Dobbs brand of Democrats.
Geeezzz...really. Why doesnt he just run for office instead of campaigning from CNN.
This time, Lou Dobbs is having a lot of admiration and good words to say about.....guess what ...LOU DOBBS.
Yes, Lou Dobbs loves Lou Dobbs. He has created a whole new class of people in this country. He says that there are 150 million "Lou Dobbs Democrats" in the country the no ones knows about.
Read the whole article here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/Dobbs.February21/index.html)
Excerpts of Lou Dobbs talking about how great and popular Lou Dobbs is...
The ascension of the so-called Lou Dobbs Democrats in the November election gave hope to many that our representatives and senators were awakening to the need to represent the largest single group of voters in the country, 150 million working men and women and their families.
--Lou Dobbs, Feb 21 2007.
The Democratic Leadership Council is obviously frightened that my brand of independent populism is a threat.
--Lou Dobbs again, on Feb 21 2007, when absolutely in awe of Lou Dobbs.
I call that independent populism, not neo-populism. And I also call that truth.
--Lou Dobbs, calling Lou Dobbs an INDEPENDENT populist while writing a column praising Lou Dobbs.
In the case of the Democratic Party, there seems to be a rising fear that more Lou Dobbs Democrats are on the way and are going to demand truth over slogans and an improving reality for working men and women rather than ideological posturing that will salve the corporate masters of both parties.
--Lou Dobbs, describing the Lou Dobbs brand of Democrats.
Geeezzz...really. Why doesnt he just run for office instead of campaigning from CNN.
mirage
08-05 08:05 AM
In your example the EB-3 guy was in the green card line before the EB-2 guy. Why on earth should he be asked to come in line after EB-2 guy if he decides to file a new one under EB-2. Why did not you wake up when Labor Substitution was going on. that was something which was utter non sense. People deciding to go for Green card in 2007 stood ahead of people from 2002 by substittuting a 2001 labor. Thank God it's gone.
What i mean is: Porting should not be an option based on the LENGTH OF WAITING TIME in EB3 status. That is what it is most commonly used for, thus causing a serious disadvantage to EB2 filers (who did not port).
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
What i mean is: Porting should not be an option based on the LENGTH OF WAITING TIME in EB3 status. That is what it is most commonly used for, thus causing a serious disadvantage to EB2 filers (who did not port).
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
Adorable style nice jacket too.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.celebswear.com/
Such a nice post.
ReplyDeletejustin bieber black jacket