krishna.ahd
02-13 09:43 AM
Please use this thread for education on the effect of lobbying on legislation. Thanks.
First of all, Why We need Lobbying
Check this out
http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/10ReasonstoLobby.pdf
Steps involved in Lobbying
http://www.policylink.org/AdvocatingForChange/Lobbying/Legislators.html
First of all, Why We need Lobbying
Check this out
http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/10ReasonstoLobby.pdf
Steps involved in Lobbying
http://www.policylink.org/AdvocatingForChange/Lobbying/Legislators.html
wallpaper Johnny Depp has appeared on
obviously
08-05 08:59 AM
Rolling Flood,
Clearly, you are a NumberUSA person trying to provoke deep rifts amongst a highly skilled workforce that succeeded in getting HR 5882 out there. Your game is up. Look, no one is claiming porting / interfiling is due to 'length of time'. Each application, under each category, is for a DIFFERENT job. Now, obviously, when you gain experience in one job, you become MORE ELIGIBLE for another job, typically at a more senior level. With that, comes a higher income and higher TAXES back to the USA. So, it is likely that EB3 applicants might have started in one job, gained 5 or 6 years experience, a Masters degree and a few certifications etc., and then become attractive candidates for jobs that require a Masters degree ... hence being eligible for an EB2 filing. The folks reviewing EB applications didnt start yesterday and are not wet behind their ears. EB3's that interfile to EB2's have to, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, show the merits of the EB2 application BY ITSELF. There is no notion of 'imagined eligibility'. If that hypothesis were true, how do we know that you did not suffer from a case of 'imagined eligibility' yourself??!!
Your perverted logic that people are using interfiling on the premise of 'waiting time in EB3 queues' is a fallacy without legal merit. It is a classic case of riding the ladder of inference and using your own conclusions to make up supporting-evidence, to the contrary of reality and law.
Now, if you think you can snake in a controversy through a law suit, only to protect your inflated sense of protectionism, keep in mind, that your target is the EB2 category itself, not the interfiling process. That latter is a provision of law. I presume that you are in EB2 yourself. Be prepared for unintended consequences because USCIS could very well freeze ALL EB2's INCLUDING YOURS! Might seem a far stretch, but realistically, anytime a court sees 'merit' in challenging an established system, ALL come under purview. How can your case be assumed to be 'innocent' while everyone else that you are against be 'guilty'? How do we know that YOUR EB2 filing was not based on 'assumed eligibility'?
There are numerous cases of people going to court seeking 'justice' only to find themselves very quickly standing 'on the other side'... trying to get out of a self inflicted mess.
Obviously, you have issues that run deeper than discontentment with US legal immigration process. Get yourself some help. Seriously.
I challenge you to disclose
YOUR REAL NAME
YOUR CASE NUMBER
YOUR EMPLOYER'S NAME
YOUR EB2 JOB DESCRIPTION
so that the larger community can find out if there really is no eligible US person to take that job. Seriously. Want to play that game? I can give you a 100% guarantee, that you would rather fight a 'shadow cause' being the coward you are ... and wont hold yourself up to the kind of scrutiny that you wish to hold others to.
Clearly, you are a NumberUSA person trying to provoke deep rifts amongst a highly skilled workforce that succeeded in getting HR 5882 out there. Your game is up. Look, no one is claiming porting / interfiling is due to 'length of time'. Each application, under each category, is for a DIFFERENT job. Now, obviously, when you gain experience in one job, you become MORE ELIGIBLE for another job, typically at a more senior level. With that, comes a higher income and higher TAXES back to the USA. So, it is likely that EB3 applicants might have started in one job, gained 5 or 6 years experience, a Masters degree and a few certifications etc., and then become attractive candidates for jobs that require a Masters degree ... hence being eligible for an EB2 filing. The folks reviewing EB applications didnt start yesterday and are not wet behind their ears. EB3's that interfile to EB2's have to, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, show the merits of the EB2 application BY ITSELF. There is no notion of 'imagined eligibility'. If that hypothesis were true, how do we know that you did not suffer from a case of 'imagined eligibility' yourself??!!
Your perverted logic that people are using interfiling on the premise of 'waiting time in EB3 queues' is a fallacy without legal merit. It is a classic case of riding the ladder of inference and using your own conclusions to make up supporting-evidence, to the contrary of reality and law.
Now, if you think you can snake in a controversy through a law suit, only to protect your inflated sense of protectionism, keep in mind, that your target is the EB2 category itself, not the interfiling process. That latter is a provision of law. I presume that you are in EB2 yourself. Be prepared for unintended consequences because USCIS could very well freeze ALL EB2's INCLUDING YOURS! Might seem a far stretch, but realistically, anytime a court sees 'merit' in challenging an established system, ALL come under purview. How can your case be assumed to be 'innocent' while everyone else that you are against be 'guilty'? How do we know that YOUR EB2 filing was not based on 'assumed eligibility'?
There are numerous cases of people going to court seeking 'justice' only to find themselves very quickly standing 'on the other side'... trying to get out of a self inflicted mess.
Obviously, you have issues that run deeper than discontentment with US legal immigration process. Get yourself some help. Seriously.
I challenge you to disclose
YOUR REAL NAME
YOUR CASE NUMBER
YOUR EMPLOYER'S NAME
YOUR EB2 JOB DESCRIPTION
so that the larger community can find out if there really is no eligible US person to take that job. Seriously. Want to play that game? I can give you a 100% guarantee, that you would rather fight a 'shadow cause' being the coward you are ... and wont hold yourself up to the kind of scrutiny that you wish to hold others to.
sanju
04-07 01:52 PM
Can there be a differentiation between extensions/renewals/company changes and new H1bs?
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
Here is why -
People who drafted and proposed this bill wants us all out PERIOD. They don't care if we are already on H1 waiting for our green card or if it is a new H1. The restrictions want us all OUT. Some people on this forum have elitist attitude (alias, I am not referring to you here, simply making a point after reading some of the post) because they either do not work for the consulting company or they are have Masters from a US Univ. Big deal�. If this passes, these people will elitist attitudes will soon realize what they would be up against.
IEEE-USA and Ron Hira et al say that they want to speed up the green card process but they oppose H1 visas. However, for whom do they want to speed up the green card process when they don�t even want people on H1 in US and are proposing a bill to systematically purge us all from US.
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
Here is why -
People who drafted and proposed this bill wants us all out PERIOD. They don't care if we are already on H1 waiting for our green card or if it is a new H1. The restrictions want us all OUT. Some people on this forum have elitist attitude (alias, I am not referring to you here, simply making a point after reading some of the post) because they either do not work for the consulting company or they are have Masters from a US Univ. Big deal�. If this passes, these people will elitist attitudes will soon realize what they would be up against.
IEEE-USA and Ron Hira et al say that they want to speed up the green card process but they oppose H1 visas. However, for whom do they want to speed up the green card process when they don�t even want people on H1 in US and are proposing a bill to systematically purge us all from US.
2011 This is my 2nd Johnny Depp
485Mbe4001
09-29 06:22 PM
So you are ok with "colateral damage" to your GC ? I have never seen a school force creationism on a child, as for reading its the same everywhere (i remember in india my catholic shool was at pains to teach us that Ramayan was a legend...i didnt change my religion because of that). How many wars were fought during regans adminstration? Do you remember the tax rate during the Carter years? people were shelling out 17% on home loans while banks were paying 13% interest on their CD's. Media driven pontification is ok as long as you can substantiate them with valid reasoning. (Clinton years were good for us but some say that it laid the foundation for the dot com crisis, which lead to easy credit and so on)
I have been here since 1997. An Obama win may just restore my faith (which was severely damaged after Bush relection) in the average intelligence of a voter.
I know that chances of passing of a bill favorable to skilled immigrants are greater with Republicans, but there are other issues far more important to me. For e.g. with a Republican win, the chances of "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent abroad) increase tremendously. I do not want that to be funded through my tax money. Neither do i want my child to read about "creationism" in school (despite paying for all that private school fees!). These issues are more important to me than tax cuts or getting a green card sooner. just my two thoughts...
I have been here since 1997. An Obama win may just restore my faith (which was severely damaged after Bush relection) in the average intelligence of a voter.
I know that chances of passing of a bill favorable to skilled immigrants are greater with Republicans, but there are other issues far more important to me. For e.g. with a Republican win, the chances of "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent abroad) increase tremendously. I do not want that to be funded through my tax money. Neither do i want my child to read about "creationism" in school (despite paying for all that private school fees!). These issues are more important to me than tax cuts or getting a green card sooner. just my two thoughts...
more...
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
NKR
04-15 08:34 PM
Factors to consider when buying:
1. Will you have to slog extra to make mortgage payments. If it means you are going to spend less time with your family, then is it really worth it.
2. Will your spouse start working to help support mortgage payments. Does this imply kids go to daycare. Then probably your kid isnt geting the care a mom can only provide to her child.
3. Will the stress level increase after buying the house (again worried for making payments, losing jobs). Is it worth it.
4. Mostly all apartments have open areas where kids can play. They are much bigger then backyards in any house. Even in your backyard you will have to watch your kids when they are outdoors. Same here in the apartment outdooors.
5. Chances are you will have more savings when you live in an apartment. You can do something really constructive like take you family for vacation, cruise.
6. Does owning a home prevent you from visiting your home country, relatives etc as you are always tied up to making mortgage payments.
For people who are really making lots of money & dont care much for it, above statments dont have much significance. Most of us are in the middle class range. So savings do matter to them.
Let me declare the winners:
1. Mariner & nojoke are logical & declared winners in this debate
2. kaiserose & NKR have made some mistakes by buying a costly home & wouldn't admit.
May God Bless you guys.
probably you have change your handle from iwantmygreen to iamgreenwithenvy. dude, first of all who made you the judge, second of all how and why did you assume that I bought a costly home?. I went in for a townhome not far from where Mr Marinner lives, going by his posts I know he lives in or near atlanta. also, we are on single income and I can happily afford the mortgage for my small home and ofcourse my kid is happy.
1. Will you have to slog extra to make mortgage payments. If it means you are going to spend less time with your family, then is it really worth it.
2. Will your spouse start working to help support mortgage payments. Does this imply kids go to daycare. Then probably your kid isnt geting the care a mom can only provide to her child.
3. Will the stress level increase after buying the house (again worried for making payments, losing jobs). Is it worth it.
4. Mostly all apartments have open areas where kids can play. They are much bigger then backyards in any house. Even in your backyard you will have to watch your kids when they are outdoors. Same here in the apartment outdooors.
5. Chances are you will have more savings when you live in an apartment. You can do something really constructive like take you family for vacation, cruise.
6. Does owning a home prevent you from visiting your home country, relatives etc as you are always tied up to making mortgage payments.
For people who are really making lots of money & dont care much for it, above statments dont have much significance. Most of us are in the middle class range. So savings do matter to them.
Let me declare the winners:
1. Mariner & nojoke are logical & declared winners in this debate
2. kaiserose & NKR have made some mistakes by buying a costly home & wouldn't admit.
May God Bless you guys.
probably you have change your handle from iwantmygreen to iamgreenwithenvy. dude, first of all who made you the judge, second of all how and why did you assume that I bought a costly home?. I went in for a townhome not far from where Mr Marinner lives, going by his posts I know he lives in or near atlanta. also, we are on single income and I can happily afford the mortgage for my small home and ofcourse my kid is happy.
more...
jonty_11
09-29 03:09 PM
Precisely my point! Majority of EB immigrants are pro-Democratic party and possible future contributors to Obama 2012 campaign.
Why then should Obama support anti-EB measures that will hurt his chances in the future, when he'll get no benefits by supporting those measures?
Hope better sense prevails!
And you think majority of those ppl will get Voting rights by 2012....forget it...Most of the ppl here are lucky to get tehir GreeN Card by 2012....
There is no reasoin for him to pander future voters......He will be most likely agnostic to EB issues, however, as noted..if Durbin is his Immigration advisor..then we are toast...so pray for the best...
Why then should Obama support anti-EB measures that will hurt his chances in the future, when he'll get no benefits by supporting those measures?
Hope better sense prevails!
And you think majority of those ppl will get Voting rights by 2012....forget it...Most of the ppl here are lucky to get tehir GreeN Card by 2012....
There is no reasoin for him to pander future voters......He will be most likely agnostic to EB issues, however, as noted..if Durbin is his Immigration advisor..then we are toast...so pray for the best...
2010 My new tattoo.
sledge_hammer
06-05 12:52 PM
First off, a house is really both an investment and a home. I would disagree with anyone that says it is one and not the other.
When you look at a house as an investment, one has to realize that there is a certain risk involved. So unless you are ready to lose some money if you made a bad decision, you should not invest. The most important thing to remember is that "investing" is never a bad decision. But investing w/o analyzing the risk involved is definitely bad. At the cost of sounding like any financial advisor, diversification is the key. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
1. You do not want to buy a house because the real estate market may collapse.
2. You do not want to invest in stocks because the stock market could go down.
3. You do not want to buy gold because their track record for long term returns is a joke.
4. You do not want to park your money in a savings account because the interest doesn't even beat inflation.
Then what is an average investor to do?
The answer is "diversify" to minimize risk. Each of the above is a solid investment if you know how to play it. We need to invest in house, gold, stocks, bonds, savings account, etc, and be prepared to take a the risk of losing some money in any one.
..And those who bought in the bubble lost money much faster than they would have "Lost" the money renting! Some of them even lost the whole House along with their Credit score!
LOL.
:D:D:D:D:D:D
When you look at a house as an investment, one has to realize that there is a certain risk involved. So unless you are ready to lose some money if you made a bad decision, you should not invest. The most important thing to remember is that "investing" is never a bad decision. But investing w/o analyzing the risk involved is definitely bad. At the cost of sounding like any financial advisor, diversification is the key. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
1. You do not want to buy a house because the real estate market may collapse.
2. You do not want to invest in stocks because the stock market could go down.
3. You do not want to buy gold because their track record for long term returns is a joke.
4. You do not want to park your money in a savings account because the interest doesn't even beat inflation.
Then what is an average investor to do?
The answer is "diversify" to minimize risk. Each of the above is a solid investment if you know how to play it. We need to invest in house, gold, stocks, bonds, savings account, etc, and be prepared to take a the risk of losing some money in any one.
..And those who bought in the bubble lost money much faster than they would have "Lost" the money renting! Some of them even lost the whole House along with their Credit score!
LOL.
:D:D:D:D:D:D
more...
krishnam70
03-26 07:10 PM
The attachment upload fails for me as well but goddamn UN, you are unbelievable.
1. Your knowledge of the specifics and technicalities and access to information is very impressive
2. And you go out of your way to share it with others
That being said, I skimmed through the document real quick and the part that caught my eye was the AAOs point on the applicant never having resided/lived in the same state as the employer, which you had also mentioned in one of your earlier posts.
Wouldn't that be quite common in most consulting scenarios? What if the beneficiary/applicant has never lived in the same state as the petitioning employer but has lived in and worked for the employer (at client locations, offsite assignments) in nearby bordering states, from before the labor was filed and until long after the 485 was filed. Do you see the USCIS ever having issues with that?
That whenever a company now applies for an H1 ( not that many companies are going to do in this climate) they have to put in as many locations/states as possible? By your suggestions if USCIS is deeming most h1b companies as 'Staffing' companies(and if it allows them to exist) then almost all H1 LCA should contain 4-5 states in which the H1B could work? How would prevailing wage calculation be done in that case? Or for that matter if each time an H1B candidate goes to work in a different location and the employer(staffing) company files 'Amend petition for location' does the prevailing wage factor come in to picture?
your advise in this could help some people who are in consulting so that they can insist with their employers to file for 'amend' in case they are working elsewhere.
- cheers
kris
1. Your knowledge of the specifics and technicalities and access to information is very impressive
2. And you go out of your way to share it with others
That being said, I skimmed through the document real quick and the part that caught my eye was the AAOs point on the applicant never having resided/lived in the same state as the employer, which you had also mentioned in one of your earlier posts.
Wouldn't that be quite common in most consulting scenarios? What if the beneficiary/applicant has never lived in the same state as the petitioning employer but has lived in and worked for the employer (at client locations, offsite assignments) in nearby bordering states, from before the labor was filed and until long after the 485 was filed. Do you see the USCIS ever having issues with that?
That whenever a company now applies for an H1 ( not that many companies are going to do in this climate) they have to put in as many locations/states as possible? By your suggestions if USCIS is deeming most h1b companies as 'Staffing' companies(and if it allows them to exist) then almost all H1 LCA should contain 4-5 states in which the H1B could work? How would prevailing wage calculation be done in that case? Or for that matter if each time an H1B candidate goes to work in a different location and the employer(staffing) company files 'Amend petition for location' does the prevailing wage factor come in to picture?
your advise in this could help some people who are in consulting so that they can insist with their employers to file for 'amend' in case they are working elsewhere.
- cheers
kris
hair johnny depp
xyzgc
12-17 04:27 PM
I told you guys.. This site name should HIV-Hindu Immigration Voice. Now
Its IV not HIV. It means indian voice and international voice and immigration voice.
The international community has denounced Pakistani terrorism. Not just Hindus
Its IV not HIV. It means indian voice and international voice and immigration voice.
The international community has denounced Pakistani terrorism. Not just Hindus
more...
Marphad
12-17 02:53 PM
Now you may go and dig out my previous postings too!
Ah! all these red dots are showered on me by you kinda folks for questioning this type of nonsense!
Bring it on more (red dots) LOL
Because when you speak something it is useful and when others say something is nonsense. Cool.
Ah! all these red dots are showered on me by you kinda folks for questioning this type of nonsense!
Bring it on more (red dots) LOL
Because when you speak something it is useful and when others say something is nonsense. Cool.
hot #8 Johnny Depp: Our favorite
satishku_2000
05-16 02:56 PM
I know where Senator Durbin stands on illegal immigration issue , he is totally for amnesty/legalization of illegal/undocumented people in the country. According to him its ok if someone is totally undocumented and stays here but its not ok if someone does consulting and documented and pays taxes while working and waiting for the green card to be approved. Isn't it height of hypocrosy?
Where do people like mbdriver and senthil stand on the issue of legalization/amnesty for illegal/undocumented people in the country? If the legalization were to happen these are the kind of people who complain saying illegal aliens have slowed down our green card petetions. If legalization were to happen processing of every petetion at USCIS will slow down considerably. I will not surprised if 485 takes 4.85 years or 48.5 years or 485 years ...:)
Which one is a bigger problem 12 to 15 million people totally undocumented or perceived misuse of visa petetions by few bad apples.
Where do people like mbdriver and senthil stand on the issue of legalization/amnesty for illegal/undocumented people in the country? If the legalization were to happen these are the kind of people who complain saying illegal aliens have slowed down our green card petetions. If legalization were to happen processing of every petetion at USCIS will slow down considerably. I will not surprised if 485 takes 4.85 years or 48.5 years or 485 years ...:)
Which one is a bigger problem 12 to 15 million people totally undocumented or perceived misuse of visa petetions by few bad apples.
more...
house Johnny Depp#39;s long-term
Macaca
12-27 06:39 PM
Onions vs. Corruption on the Outrage Scale (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/12/27/onions-vs-corruption-on-the-outrage-scale/) By Rupa Subramanya Dehejia | IndiaRealTime
Are we a democracy in name only? Is the Indian electorate apathetic? Why aren�t people marching in the streets protesting the recent spate of corruption scams?
Well, OK, some marched last Wednesday as the BJP sponsored demonstrations against corruption in the major metros. But it was hardly a spontaneous and large-scale outpouring of popular disaffection. And it was rather late at that.
While India�s political classes and the English speaking elite are working themselves into a rhetorical frenzy over the succession of scandals that have beset the United Progressive Alliance government, contrast this to the apparent complete lack of engagement by the common man. While most Indian commentary has focused on the political intrigue within Delhi, Paul Beckett in the WSJ remarked on the fact that �this is the sort of event that in a less apathetic democracy would lead to genuinely convulsive outrage.�
At least every five years, India is a vibrant democracy, with a high participation rate and a robust tendency to punish incumbents who perform poorly, even more so than in most Western democracies. But why do we become so lethargic in between? Where are the convulsions that we surely should be seeing?
Recently, I�ve been posing this question to just about everyone I meet from Mumbai taxi drivers, construction crew in the neighboring apartment, Twitter followers, and whomever else I can buttonhole. Some professed no interest, saying that all of their energy and time are occupied by putting food on the table. Others expressed a sense of helplessness: �I�m a day laborer barely making ends meet; how can I influence what these big politicians do? Who will listen to me?�
This sense of resignation needs to be questioned. If common folk felt that helpless, why would they bother to vote in such large numbers and turf out politicians they don�t like every time an election comes around? As the recent state election in Bihar demonstrates, voters are quite prepared to reward good governance and punish grandstanding populism. Clearly, as an electorate, we�re responsive and agile when we want to be.
So what�s going on?
One hypothesis is that people largely see this as political theater. So long as the economy is booming and there�s no direct impact on their pocketbook, it�s business as usual. Let�s not forget when existential questions such as land acquisition or the price of staples are at issue, we do see the common man coming out on the streets and expressing his displeasure, forcing governments to react. Witness the recent uproar over the price of onions.
The estimated $40 billion loss to the exchequer from selling the 2G spectrum below its value is money not spent on electrifying Indian towns and villages, building schools and hospitals, etc. Why don�t people see it this way? It is not merely a �presumptive� loss as Kapil Sabil contended to Barkha Dutt on NDTV recently but a real economic loss. After all, a rupee not earned is a rupee wasted.
Another reason could be that two-thirds of the people are poor and don�t pay much in the way of income taxes. Perhaps they don�t see the recent scams as costing them. Contrast this to the West where every allegation of government money misused is widely portrayed as a waste of taxpayers� money and galvanizes opposition. In India, the bulk of the tax base is rich individuals and corporations who, as we should expect, are the ones who�ve been screaming loudest about the recent scandals.
A related explanation may be that there�s been a failure by the opposition parties in articulating the cost to the common man of these various scams. Broad and sweeping condemnations of corruption don�t speak directly to the fact that the money lost could have been used for productive social ends. The talking heads on cable news channels and the pundits in print seem so caught up in the minute details of parliamentary and judicial procedures that they miss the forest for the trees.
The crux of the matter is this: government strategists have presumably deduced that none of these recent scams will be consequential at the polls. What animates the common man is not television debates between Anglicized lawyers who use fancy words but fundamental issues such as food, water and land. Despite all of our economic progress, there remains a fundamental divide between the interests of the urban middle and upper classes and of the poor, whether urban or rural.
Until that changes, the price of onions will always be politically more salient than whatever corruption scandal is making headlines, and will dictate electoral fortunes.
Do you agree? Share your thoughts in the Comments section.
Are we a democracy in name only? Is the Indian electorate apathetic? Why aren�t people marching in the streets protesting the recent spate of corruption scams?
Well, OK, some marched last Wednesday as the BJP sponsored demonstrations against corruption in the major metros. But it was hardly a spontaneous and large-scale outpouring of popular disaffection. And it was rather late at that.
While India�s political classes and the English speaking elite are working themselves into a rhetorical frenzy over the succession of scandals that have beset the United Progressive Alliance government, contrast this to the apparent complete lack of engagement by the common man. While most Indian commentary has focused on the political intrigue within Delhi, Paul Beckett in the WSJ remarked on the fact that �this is the sort of event that in a less apathetic democracy would lead to genuinely convulsive outrage.�
At least every five years, India is a vibrant democracy, with a high participation rate and a robust tendency to punish incumbents who perform poorly, even more so than in most Western democracies. But why do we become so lethargic in between? Where are the convulsions that we surely should be seeing?
Recently, I�ve been posing this question to just about everyone I meet from Mumbai taxi drivers, construction crew in the neighboring apartment, Twitter followers, and whomever else I can buttonhole. Some professed no interest, saying that all of their energy and time are occupied by putting food on the table. Others expressed a sense of helplessness: �I�m a day laborer barely making ends meet; how can I influence what these big politicians do? Who will listen to me?�
This sense of resignation needs to be questioned. If common folk felt that helpless, why would they bother to vote in such large numbers and turf out politicians they don�t like every time an election comes around? As the recent state election in Bihar demonstrates, voters are quite prepared to reward good governance and punish grandstanding populism. Clearly, as an electorate, we�re responsive and agile when we want to be.
So what�s going on?
One hypothesis is that people largely see this as political theater. So long as the economy is booming and there�s no direct impact on their pocketbook, it�s business as usual. Let�s not forget when existential questions such as land acquisition or the price of staples are at issue, we do see the common man coming out on the streets and expressing his displeasure, forcing governments to react. Witness the recent uproar over the price of onions.
The estimated $40 billion loss to the exchequer from selling the 2G spectrum below its value is money not spent on electrifying Indian towns and villages, building schools and hospitals, etc. Why don�t people see it this way? It is not merely a �presumptive� loss as Kapil Sabil contended to Barkha Dutt on NDTV recently but a real economic loss. After all, a rupee not earned is a rupee wasted.
Another reason could be that two-thirds of the people are poor and don�t pay much in the way of income taxes. Perhaps they don�t see the recent scams as costing them. Contrast this to the West where every allegation of government money misused is widely portrayed as a waste of taxpayers� money and galvanizes opposition. In India, the bulk of the tax base is rich individuals and corporations who, as we should expect, are the ones who�ve been screaming loudest about the recent scandals.
A related explanation may be that there�s been a failure by the opposition parties in articulating the cost to the common man of these various scams. Broad and sweeping condemnations of corruption don�t speak directly to the fact that the money lost could have been used for productive social ends. The talking heads on cable news channels and the pundits in print seem so caught up in the minute details of parliamentary and judicial procedures that they miss the forest for the trees.
The crux of the matter is this: government strategists have presumably deduced that none of these recent scams will be consequential at the polls. What animates the common man is not television debates between Anglicized lawyers who use fancy words but fundamental issues such as food, water and land. Despite all of our economic progress, there remains a fundamental divide between the interests of the urban middle and upper classes and of the poor, whether urban or rural.
Until that changes, the price of onions will always be politically more salient than whatever corruption scandal is making headlines, and will dictate electoral fortunes.
Do you agree? Share your thoughts in the Comments section.
tattoo Is Johnny Depp Dead?
aadimanav
07-13 10:09 AM
Friends,
Please vote here, and share your ideas, regarding "Campaign for Visa Recapture"
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20132
There should be enough people supporting any campaign to be successful.
Thanks,
Please vote here, and share your ideas, regarding "Campaign for Visa Recapture"
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20132
There should be enough people supporting any campaign to be successful.
Thanks,
more...
pictures Johnny Depp won#39;t be giving
devikas81
12-19 01:38 PM
All Pakistanis are not a Terrorist but all Terrorist are Pakistanis..
dresses The film stars Johnny Depp as
unseenguy
06-08 08:43 PM
First print the damn thing of plastic and I will buy. Right now there are pretty hot deals in my area and I am tempted to buy, but wont.
Due to my spouse's job, I dont get the 8K benefit. So screw, let them fall further.
1) Economy is unstable.
2) Job is unstable.
3) H1 / 485 is unstable
Only the wooden sturcture would be stable.
Due to my spouse's job, I dont get the 8K benefit. So screw, let them fall further.
1) Economy is unstable.
2) Job is unstable.
3) H1 / 485 is unstable
Only the wooden sturcture would be stable.
more...
makeup johnny depp wife and children.
Macaca
05-18 05:23 PM
Guilty by Association (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/17/guilty_by_association) By RACHEL BEITARIE | Foreign Policy
On a quiet block in western Beijing where otherwise only a few retirees can be seen walking their dogs or trimming their bushes, one building is under constant and conspicuous surveillance. A plainclothes policeman stands guard before an entranceway, while another keeps watch sitting inside a small cabin.
The unlikely object of the Chinese state's attention in this instance is Liu Xia, a painter, poet, and photographer -- and the wife of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. Guilty by association, she has been under house arrest, with almost no contact with the outside world, since November 2010, when her husband's award was announced. No one has heard from Liu since February, and her friends are increasingly worried about her health. Still, there is no sign that the authorities are planning to relent.
Liu's arrest underscores a peculiar aspect to the recent Chinese crackdown on political dissidents that has seen the detention of dozens of prominent activists, intellectuals, and artists. Authorities are increasingly targeting not just critics of the ruling party, but their family members, including spouses, parents, and even young children. While the dissidents gain the headlines, their relatives are punished out of the spotlight. Though the wife of jailed artist Ai Weiwei was recently allowed a visit her husband, she could be next in line to lose her freedom.
It's a punitive strategy that seeks to exploit Chinese traditions of filial piety. For China's dissidents, family is often both a source of strength and weakness: Chinese families tend to be close and highly involved in each other lives, and they take seriously the promise to stick together through thick and thin. The government, aware of these close ties, is using them to put more pressure on activists.
It also bears echoes of the Cultural Revolution-era, when many Chinese families were torn apart as spouses and children were forced to denounce loved ones labeled by the authorities as capitalist traitors and were sometimes forced to take part in their public humiliation. Today's China is again making a policy of manipulating familial love and devotion to suppress any political challenges.
"One of the more troubling trends we see in recent years has been for the government to more directly involve family members," observes Joshua Rosenzweig, a senior researcher at the Dui Hua Foundation, a U.S.-based organization dedicated to improving human rights in China. "We see surveillance, constant harassment, even extended house arrests. These all happened before, but now they have become routine" -- as in the case of Liu Xia. Rosenzweig adds, "Legal procedure has become irrelevant" in the Communist Party's quest to maintain stability. Under Chinese law, there is no procedure that allows for a person to be held indefinitely under house arrest without charges or a police investigation. "To put it simply, families are being held hostage," says Rosenzweig.
Zeng Jinyan would concur. She has been under constant surveillance and subject to frequent house arrests ever since 2001, when she met her husband, AIDS activist Hu Jia, who is now serving a three-and-a-half-year sentence for "subversion of state power." Zeng was a student when they met, and she says she never imagined her life turning out the way it did. "I thought I'll graduate, find a job, and marry. I planned on a simple life and was hoping I could have enough time and money to travel the world," she tells me in a telephone interview. But she has since become an acclaimed activist in her own right, detailing her everyday life under the party's watchful eye on her blog and Twitter account. In 2007, Time magazine included her on its list of the world's 100 most influential people. Clearly, the regime's strategy backfired in this case.
Most families, however, don't have nearly that kind of wherewithal. Take, for example, the family of Chen Guangcheng, a blind, self-taught lawyer from Shandong province who was imprisoned for four years for his work with disenfranchised villagers and woman forced to have abortions. After his release, he was forced to live in isolation in a Shandong village, together with his wife, Yuan Weijing, and their 6-year-old daughter. Yuan is denied almost all contact to the outside world, including to her son, who she sent away to be raised by relatives so that he can attend school. In February, the couple managed to smuggle a video out of the country in which they described their plight. They were reportedly beaten and denied medical treatment after the video was posted online.
On the phone, Zeng describes the successive levels of pressure that the government applies to her: "First of all, there is worrying about [Hu's] safety. For some time, we didn't even know where he was and what kind of abuse he was suffering. I worry about his health, about his mental situation."
"Then there is the question of making a living and sustaining some income as a de facto single mother," she continues. (Zeng's daughter is three-and-a-half years old. Her father was imprisoned shortly after she was born). "Because of constant police harassment, I could not get a good job or start a business. For a time, I couldn't even get a nanny for my child because when I hired one, the police would threaten her and scare her away."
Zeng says the psychological warfare she faces is brutal. Between threats and detentions, she repeatedly has to deal with the innuendo from her surveillance teams and government-sponsored neighborhood committees, which suggest there were "high-positioned" men "interested" in her and imply that she could improve her situation greatly if only she would leave her partner.
"All this is meant to isolate me from society and to break me down," Zeng concludes. "Sometimes it works. They planted deep trauma in my heart."
Although Zeng has chosen to join her husband in dissenting against the government, picking up where Hu was forced to leave off when he was arrested for his activism, some relatives of dissidents prefer to keep quiet. Still others try to actively distance themselves from activism, sometimes going so far as to move to an entirely new city or even to file for divorce. That's what happened in the case of Yang Zili, a social commentator who was imprisoned for eight years in 2001 for organizing a discussion group on political issues. His wife at the time, Lu Kun, petitioned several times on his behalf, took care of his defense and finances, and visited prison when allowed, but eventually moved to the United States. The couple divorced after Yang was released in 2009. Yang says he understood her decision. "It is just too much pressure, being the wife of a dissident in China; it's a fate many prefer to avoid," he says. Still, Lu's choice also made Yang's life more difficult: the last couple of years of his prison term he was held in almost complete isolation, with no family visits at all.
"Tactics are definitely designed to put pressure on those who contemplate political activism," Rosenzweig explains. "It is one thing to be willing to confront authorities or even go to jail, and another thing to know your family will suffer. This doesn't always deter everyone from speaking up, but it is a factor dissidents take into account." Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel laureate, referred to this factor in addressing his wife in a speech before the court that sentenced him -- after a speedy trial that Liu Xia was not allowed to attend -- to 11 years in prison: "Throughout all these years ... our love was full of bitterness imposed by outside circumstances, but as I savor its aftertaste, it remains boundless. I am serving my sentence in a tangible prison, while you wait in the intangible prison of the heart. Your love is the sunlight that leaps over high walls and penetrates the iron bars of my prison window, stroking every inch of my skin.... My love for you, on the other hand, is so full of remorse and regret that it at times makes me stagger under its weight," Liu said.
Wives (and in some cases husbands) are not the only ones who earn the attention of the state: Zeng's parents, who live in Fujian province, receive frequent police visits, while her in-laws in Beijing were put under house arrest several times. In another case, the elderly parents of an activist were threatened by the local police in their small town and were then rushed to Beijing so that they could pressure their son to stop his involvement in human rights organizations. A Shanghai lawyer, Li Tiantian, reported in February that her boyfriend was threatened that he'll be dismissed from his job on account of her activism. Li has since been taken into police custody.
On a quiet block in western Beijing where otherwise only a few retirees can be seen walking their dogs or trimming their bushes, one building is under constant and conspicuous surveillance. A plainclothes policeman stands guard before an entranceway, while another keeps watch sitting inside a small cabin.
The unlikely object of the Chinese state's attention in this instance is Liu Xia, a painter, poet, and photographer -- and the wife of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. Guilty by association, she has been under house arrest, with almost no contact with the outside world, since November 2010, when her husband's award was announced. No one has heard from Liu since February, and her friends are increasingly worried about her health. Still, there is no sign that the authorities are planning to relent.
Liu's arrest underscores a peculiar aspect to the recent Chinese crackdown on political dissidents that has seen the detention of dozens of prominent activists, intellectuals, and artists. Authorities are increasingly targeting not just critics of the ruling party, but their family members, including spouses, parents, and even young children. While the dissidents gain the headlines, their relatives are punished out of the spotlight. Though the wife of jailed artist Ai Weiwei was recently allowed a visit her husband, she could be next in line to lose her freedom.
It's a punitive strategy that seeks to exploit Chinese traditions of filial piety. For China's dissidents, family is often both a source of strength and weakness: Chinese families tend to be close and highly involved in each other lives, and they take seriously the promise to stick together through thick and thin. The government, aware of these close ties, is using them to put more pressure on activists.
It also bears echoes of the Cultural Revolution-era, when many Chinese families were torn apart as spouses and children were forced to denounce loved ones labeled by the authorities as capitalist traitors and were sometimes forced to take part in their public humiliation. Today's China is again making a policy of manipulating familial love and devotion to suppress any political challenges.
"One of the more troubling trends we see in recent years has been for the government to more directly involve family members," observes Joshua Rosenzweig, a senior researcher at the Dui Hua Foundation, a U.S.-based organization dedicated to improving human rights in China. "We see surveillance, constant harassment, even extended house arrests. These all happened before, but now they have become routine" -- as in the case of Liu Xia. Rosenzweig adds, "Legal procedure has become irrelevant" in the Communist Party's quest to maintain stability. Under Chinese law, there is no procedure that allows for a person to be held indefinitely under house arrest without charges or a police investigation. "To put it simply, families are being held hostage," says Rosenzweig.
Zeng Jinyan would concur. She has been under constant surveillance and subject to frequent house arrests ever since 2001, when she met her husband, AIDS activist Hu Jia, who is now serving a three-and-a-half-year sentence for "subversion of state power." Zeng was a student when they met, and she says she never imagined her life turning out the way it did. "I thought I'll graduate, find a job, and marry. I planned on a simple life and was hoping I could have enough time and money to travel the world," she tells me in a telephone interview. But she has since become an acclaimed activist in her own right, detailing her everyday life under the party's watchful eye on her blog and Twitter account. In 2007, Time magazine included her on its list of the world's 100 most influential people. Clearly, the regime's strategy backfired in this case.
Most families, however, don't have nearly that kind of wherewithal. Take, for example, the family of Chen Guangcheng, a blind, self-taught lawyer from Shandong province who was imprisoned for four years for his work with disenfranchised villagers and woman forced to have abortions. After his release, he was forced to live in isolation in a Shandong village, together with his wife, Yuan Weijing, and their 6-year-old daughter. Yuan is denied almost all contact to the outside world, including to her son, who she sent away to be raised by relatives so that he can attend school. In February, the couple managed to smuggle a video out of the country in which they described their plight. They were reportedly beaten and denied medical treatment after the video was posted online.
On the phone, Zeng describes the successive levels of pressure that the government applies to her: "First of all, there is worrying about [Hu's] safety. For some time, we didn't even know where he was and what kind of abuse he was suffering. I worry about his health, about his mental situation."
"Then there is the question of making a living and sustaining some income as a de facto single mother," she continues. (Zeng's daughter is three-and-a-half years old. Her father was imprisoned shortly after she was born). "Because of constant police harassment, I could not get a good job or start a business. For a time, I couldn't even get a nanny for my child because when I hired one, the police would threaten her and scare her away."
Zeng says the psychological warfare she faces is brutal. Between threats and detentions, she repeatedly has to deal with the innuendo from her surveillance teams and government-sponsored neighborhood committees, which suggest there were "high-positioned" men "interested" in her and imply that she could improve her situation greatly if only she would leave her partner.
"All this is meant to isolate me from society and to break me down," Zeng concludes. "Sometimes it works. They planted deep trauma in my heart."
Although Zeng has chosen to join her husband in dissenting against the government, picking up where Hu was forced to leave off when he was arrested for his activism, some relatives of dissidents prefer to keep quiet. Still others try to actively distance themselves from activism, sometimes going so far as to move to an entirely new city or even to file for divorce. That's what happened in the case of Yang Zili, a social commentator who was imprisoned for eight years in 2001 for organizing a discussion group on political issues. His wife at the time, Lu Kun, petitioned several times on his behalf, took care of his defense and finances, and visited prison when allowed, but eventually moved to the United States. The couple divorced after Yang was released in 2009. Yang says he understood her decision. "It is just too much pressure, being the wife of a dissident in China; it's a fate many prefer to avoid," he says. Still, Lu's choice also made Yang's life more difficult: the last couple of years of his prison term he was held in almost complete isolation, with no family visits at all.
"Tactics are definitely designed to put pressure on those who contemplate political activism," Rosenzweig explains. "It is one thing to be willing to confront authorities or even go to jail, and another thing to know your family will suffer. This doesn't always deter everyone from speaking up, but it is a factor dissidents take into account." Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel laureate, referred to this factor in addressing his wife in a speech before the court that sentenced him -- after a speedy trial that Liu Xia was not allowed to attend -- to 11 years in prison: "Throughout all these years ... our love was full of bitterness imposed by outside circumstances, but as I savor its aftertaste, it remains boundless. I am serving my sentence in a tangible prison, while you wait in the intangible prison of the heart. Your love is the sunlight that leaps over high walls and penetrates the iron bars of my prison window, stroking every inch of my skin.... My love for you, on the other hand, is so full of remorse and regret that it at times makes me stagger under its weight," Liu said.
Wives (and in some cases husbands) are not the only ones who earn the attention of the state: Zeng's parents, who live in Fujian province, receive frequent police visits, while her in-laws in Beijing were put under house arrest several times. In another case, the elderly parents of an activist were threatened by the local police in their small town and were then rushed to Beijing so that they could pressure their son to stop his involvement in human rights organizations. A Shanghai lawyer, Li Tiantian, reported in February that her boyfriend was threatened that he'll be dismissed from his job on account of her activism. Li has since been taken into police custody.
girlfriend makeup Rihanna new tattoos
BMS
07-11 10:09 AM
Thanks Milind70,
I had submitted the lattest I 94 to my company
but somehow they filed ext with I 94 that came along with i 797
now i will get three yr ext with I 140 cleared
then i can get new i 94 with stamping
You mean,
talk to immigration officer now at local off?
can they correct that i doubt since its already expired and i have new I797 with I94
I had submitted the lattest I 94 to my company
but somehow they filed ext with I 94 that came along with i 797
now i will get three yr ext with I 140 cleared
then i can get new i 94 with stamping
You mean,
talk to immigration officer now at local off?
can they correct that i doubt since its already expired and i have new I797 with I94
hairstyles Johnny Depp used many
alterego
11-21 05:37 PM
This man is truly delusional and ignorant and a total propaganda machine.
Tonight he is stating that India is going to transfer sensitive nuclear technology that it will get from the USA through the nuclear deal to China.
Does he even realise India got its ass kicked in a border war with China in the past, and that India and China share a border so that it rather than the US faces a more imminent danger from an all conquering and enabled nation.
What a moron. Tonight I realised the extent of his hillbilly journalism. All he is after is ratings, he chats pure S#*&. Harvard ought to be ashamed of him.
Tonight he is stating that India is going to transfer sensitive nuclear technology that it will get from the USA through the nuclear deal to China.
Does he even realise India got its ass kicked in a border war with China in the past, and that India and China share a border so that it rather than the US faces a more imminent danger from an all conquering and enabled nation.
What a moron. Tonight I realised the extent of his hillbilly journalism. All he is after is ratings, he chats pure S#*&. Harvard ought to be ashamed of him.
unitednations
08-02 12:50 PM
Thanks UN
245i is a good example of correct intention but poor execution.
It caused a surge of labor filings for people who were here illegally. It allowed people who were beneficiaries of i-130's to also jump over to labor cert cases afterwards when they say nothing was happening with family petitions.
it really caused a drain to department of labor at the state level in the heavily populated states. This is when all the drama began (companies setting up show in delaware, maine, new hampshire, south dakota).
Just with how the laws work; different agencies; different fuding, different jurisdictions; it is difficult for the agenices to do process improvement because congress doesn't ask them if they can handle a law change. Law gets changed and the agencies don't have enough time to implement or get ready for it; and then we all crib about it.
I know everyone is in a bit of a high right now that they can file 485's but without increasing quota or allowing more people to get approved; we will definitely see some anxiety from many people.
Honestly; my biggest worry is the people who work at consulting companies and want to leave the first chance they get. Every time a company files a 140, h-1b; it gives a chance for uscis to go through the whole immigration history of a company. At certain points the number of 140's will be greater then the actual number of people working at the company. If they start detecting a pattern that everyone is leaving;it will look like company is set up for immigration purpose.
California service center was just getting tough with this before they stopped doing 140's. There were a few big bodyshoppers where california service center denied the 140's and one of the reasons were that they didn't have a full time and permanent job for the person. In the decision; they went to such an extent as to going to company web-site and seeing the positions posted were at client locations for 3 to 6 months; they went to dice to see their postings, etc. and denied the cases. I think there will be an issue with this.
245i is a good example of correct intention but poor execution.
It caused a surge of labor filings for people who were here illegally. It allowed people who were beneficiaries of i-130's to also jump over to labor cert cases afterwards when they say nothing was happening with family petitions.
it really caused a drain to department of labor at the state level in the heavily populated states. This is when all the drama began (companies setting up show in delaware, maine, new hampshire, south dakota).
Just with how the laws work; different agencies; different fuding, different jurisdictions; it is difficult for the agenices to do process improvement because congress doesn't ask them if they can handle a law change. Law gets changed and the agencies don't have enough time to implement or get ready for it; and then we all crib about it.
I know everyone is in a bit of a high right now that they can file 485's but without increasing quota or allowing more people to get approved; we will definitely see some anxiety from many people.
Honestly; my biggest worry is the people who work at consulting companies and want to leave the first chance they get. Every time a company files a 140, h-1b; it gives a chance for uscis to go through the whole immigration history of a company. At certain points the number of 140's will be greater then the actual number of people working at the company. If they start detecting a pattern that everyone is leaving;it will look like company is set up for immigration purpose.
California service center was just getting tough with this before they stopped doing 140's. There were a few big bodyshoppers where california service center denied the 140's and one of the reasons were that they didn't have a full time and permanent job for the person. In the decision; they went to such an extent as to going to company web-site and seeing the positions posted were at client locations for 3 to 6 months; they went to dice to see their postings, etc. and denied the cases. I think there will be an issue with this.
satishku_2000
05-16 11:28 PM
The greater danger in life is not that we set our aims too high and fail, but we set them too low and still do � Michelangelo
Your aim is to not get fired. You want to buy an insurance policy to a secure job as if you are the only one entitled to have a job. This is a lower aim so you are bound to fail i.e. lose your job.
And how do you define �replacing some American workers�. There is a plant in Yuma, AZ manufacturing aircrafts for Kingfisher airlines in India. Doesn�t this mean that someone in India is being replaced by American worker???? Maybe we should stop all trade and we should have all needs of one country fill within its borders. Maybe we should say � from now on no one is going to do any business, collaboration, partnership and place orders to companies outside of the borders of the country where you live.
The best argument of restrictionist is either talk about no H-1B or green cards or talk about unlimited H-1Bs and green cards as if the extremes make the only reality in this world. Have you ever seen numbers like 290,000 or maybe 450,000. These are called whole numbers in mathematics and reside somewhere between ZERO and INFINITY/UNLIMITED.
Stop bickering in the name of American people. More than 99% Americans don�t even know what is H-1B visa or employment based green card. And one more thing, people�s opinion is the most foolish thing to look at when making a decision. Do you remember the % of people in favor of Iraq war in 2002? - More than 70%
Do you know how many people are in favor of pulling out of Iraq now, putting all the blame on the Administration? � around 70%
Do you know the % of �American people� saying that they screwed up by supporting the war in 2002? � 0%
No one would come out to say the nations and millions of people got screwed up due to "MY" twisted ideology in 2002. So let�s keep this argument of �American People� out of this debate.
In free market and capitalist economy, the measure of productivity doesn�t come from some lawmaker who is out of sink with reality or from the ideology of orgs like IEEE-USA or from posters like you. The measure of productivity comes from the employers and the companies. And if that is how it works best for the economy, society and the nation, then so be it. That is the reason why this society is more advanced. You may be afraid of such a situation but I am not scared of a scenario where someone who can perform a better job, either a citizen or on H-1B, takes my job. But that is ok, your way of thinking is all based on the premises that every one out there is after you and some how you have to eliminate this competition at the soonest.
You have used the argument of abuse, productivity, economy, outsourcing, country of origin and the color of Dick Morris� underwear - to argue against H-1B and to come extent green card number increase. Time and again I have said that this is not about H-1B. We, the people on this forum, want to discuss about GREEN CARD BACKLOGS. But you want to keep the discussion away from green card backlog and want the discussion be in the arena of H-1B. I must share with you that I have received atleast 7 different private messages telling me to �not waste my time with idiot like yourself�.
Like you ass, you keep your views and your opinions with yourself. Don�t poke your ass and your views into a place where they don�t belong. And please stop worrying about being displaced by someone else on H-1B. You have not even gotten green card and you have already turned into a restrictionist. Please wait for sometime and there will be enough time and opportunity for you to join the ranks of IEEE-USA. This makes me to think that there are 2 possibilities:
1.) You have very low self esteem and you think very lowly about yourself. Thus you are scared of the competition
2.) You are not capable enough or technically sound to compete with other around you. And just like IEEE-USA you are looking for ways to eliminate your future probable competition using words/phrases like �displacement of US workers�.
I tried to explain this guy Senthil that I already proved in form of permanent labor certificate and I 140 petition that I am not displacing any american worker and why I have to prove the same fact for every renewal and he comes with a logic that GC is for future job and H1b is for current job. But you know what my GC application was filed very well in the past ...:) , I mean more than 3 years ago ...
Somehow some people think they are better than every one else in the crowd and things dont go wrong for them because they have either a particular degree or work in a so called permanent Job .
These guys are in more alignment with view of ALIPAC and Numbers USA where people think some elses loss is my gain. Having said that reasonable people disagree these guys are totally unreasonable or they are totally out of touch with reality .
These guys love Mr Durbin so much who dont see any problem with illegal immigration at all ....I would call this height of hypocrosy.
Your aim is to not get fired. You want to buy an insurance policy to a secure job as if you are the only one entitled to have a job. This is a lower aim so you are bound to fail i.e. lose your job.
And how do you define �replacing some American workers�. There is a plant in Yuma, AZ manufacturing aircrafts for Kingfisher airlines in India. Doesn�t this mean that someone in India is being replaced by American worker???? Maybe we should stop all trade and we should have all needs of one country fill within its borders. Maybe we should say � from now on no one is going to do any business, collaboration, partnership and place orders to companies outside of the borders of the country where you live.
The best argument of restrictionist is either talk about no H-1B or green cards or talk about unlimited H-1Bs and green cards as if the extremes make the only reality in this world. Have you ever seen numbers like 290,000 or maybe 450,000. These are called whole numbers in mathematics and reside somewhere between ZERO and INFINITY/UNLIMITED.
Stop bickering in the name of American people. More than 99% Americans don�t even know what is H-1B visa or employment based green card. And one more thing, people�s opinion is the most foolish thing to look at when making a decision. Do you remember the % of people in favor of Iraq war in 2002? - More than 70%
Do you know how many people are in favor of pulling out of Iraq now, putting all the blame on the Administration? � around 70%
Do you know the % of �American people� saying that they screwed up by supporting the war in 2002? � 0%
No one would come out to say the nations and millions of people got screwed up due to "MY" twisted ideology in 2002. So let�s keep this argument of �American People� out of this debate.
In free market and capitalist economy, the measure of productivity doesn�t come from some lawmaker who is out of sink with reality or from the ideology of orgs like IEEE-USA or from posters like you. The measure of productivity comes from the employers and the companies. And if that is how it works best for the economy, society and the nation, then so be it. That is the reason why this society is more advanced. You may be afraid of such a situation but I am not scared of a scenario where someone who can perform a better job, either a citizen or on H-1B, takes my job. But that is ok, your way of thinking is all based on the premises that every one out there is after you and some how you have to eliminate this competition at the soonest.
You have used the argument of abuse, productivity, economy, outsourcing, country of origin and the color of Dick Morris� underwear - to argue against H-1B and to come extent green card number increase. Time and again I have said that this is not about H-1B. We, the people on this forum, want to discuss about GREEN CARD BACKLOGS. But you want to keep the discussion away from green card backlog and want the discussion be in the arena of H-1B. I must share with you that I have received atleast 7 different private messages telling me to �not waste my time with idiot like yourself�.
Like you ass, you keep your views and your opinions with yourself. Don�t poke your ass and your views into a place where they don�t belong. And please stop worrying about being displaced by someone else on H-1B. You have not even gotten green card and you have already turned into a restrictionist. Please wait for sometime and there will be enough time and opportunity for you to join the ranks of IEEE-USA. This makes me to think that there are 2 possibilities:
1.) You have very low self esteem and you think very lowly about yourself. Thus you are scared of the competition
2.) You are not capable enough or technically sound to compete with other around you. And just like IEEE-USA you are looking for ways to eliminate your future probable competition using words/phrases like �displacement of US workers�.
I tried to explain this guy Senthil that I already proved in form of permanent labor certificate and I 140 petition that I am not displacing any american worker and why I have to prove the same fact for every renewal and he comes with a logic that GC is for future job and H1b is for current job. But you know what my GC application was filed very well in the past ...:) , I mean more than 3 years ago ...
Somehow some people think they are better than every one else in the crowd and things dont go wrong for them because they have either a particular degree or work in a so called permanent Job .
These guys are in more alignment with view of ALIPAC and Numbers USA where people think some elses loss is my gain. Having said that reasonable people disagree these guys are totally unreasonable or they are totally out of touch with reality .
These guys love Mr Durbin so much who dont see any problem with illegal immigration at all ....I would call this height of hypocrosy.
No comments:
Post a Comment