Macaca
12-20 08:07 AM
Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews) By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 20, 2007
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.
But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.
Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.
"I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."
Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.
The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.
Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.
The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.
"This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.
Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.
Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.
Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.
With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.
But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.
Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."
"Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.
But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.
The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.
Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.
Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.
Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.
This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.
"Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.
wallpaper Tori Spelling#39;s New Job
senthil1
05-16 06:55 PM
Permanent lc for for the future job. Current job is different than future job though they are similar. H1B is for current job.
But it does not impact much if Skil bill comes. Most of the persons PD will become current and anyone who gets H1b will get GC within 1 or 2 years. So no need for H1b extension. If Skil bill comes with Durbin proposal then most of the negative issues will be resolved by increasing more gcs. Infact substitution elimination also not needed if Skil bill comes as PD will become current always.
You did not answer my question about why some one with permanent labor certificate has to go thru the process of advertisement process for H1B renewal?
In my case DOL labor took almost 3 years to certify my labor certificate which states that I am not displacing any american worker. I think 3 years is a good time to find whether I am displacing american worker or not.
This law simply goes too far in the name of preventing abuse. I just dont get why someone working for same company and whose GC petition is pending(GC labor approved) has to prove every year that he is not displacing an american worker.
But it does not impact much if Skil bill comes. Most of the persons PD will become current and anyone who gets H1b will get GC within 1 or 2 years. So no need for H1b extension. If Skil bill comes with Durbin proposal then most of the negative issues will be resolved by increasing more gcs. Infact substitution elimination also not needed if Skil bill comes as PD will become current always.
You did not answer my question about why some one with permanent labor certificate has to go thru the process of advertisement process for H1B renewal?
In my case DOL labor took almost 3 years to certify my labor certificate which states that I am not displacing any american worker. I think 3 years is a good time to find whether I am displacing american worker or not.
This law simply goes too far in the name of preventing abuse. I just dont get why someone working for same company and whose GC petition is pending(GC labor approved) has to prove every year that he is not displacing an american worker.
vdlrao
07-14 11:02 AM
EB2 dates may be unavailable/ dont move. But it is just for a very short span of time. And after that EB2 dates start moving quickly again. I presume by 2009 october, the EB2 India PD will close to 2008. Any retrogression, if there is, in EB2 will be very mild from now on because of the spillovers.
Regarding EB3: Every year there had been about 100k approvals in EB3 category, out of around 160K(even though there are 140k visas, there have been approving more because they are using unused family visa numbers) approvals in Employment Based Category. This is because of vertical fall outs of visa numbers. Now they have changed the scenario to horizontal fall outs (spreading across at the same category level( ex. EB2) irrespective of country of chargeability.). So this time it would be around 100K approvals in EB2 category.
Let us make as much noice as we could because of EB3 retrogression. That doesnt effect EB2 movement. But may make it possible visa numbers increase for EB category by legislation. So we have to support this agitation made by our EB3 friends.
I could seee all the EB3 folks with PD older than 2006 and EB2 folks with PD older than 2008 will be cleared off in the next two years. I am sure there wont be not more than 1 or 2 years delay between EB2 and EB3 categories in near future.And there are lot of things going to happen for employment based immigratin in the next two years.
This EB2 movement of 2 and half years is just a first step by DOS.
Regarding EB3: Every year there had been about 100k approvals in EB3 category, out of around 160K(even though there are 140k visas, there have been approving more because they are using unused family visa numbers) approvals in Employment Based Category. This is because of vertical fall outs of visa numbers. Now they have changed the scenario to horizontal fall outs (spreading across at the same category level( ex. EB2) irrespective of country of chargeability.). So this time it would be around 100K approvals in EB2 category.
Let us make as much noice as we could because of EB3 retrogression. That doesnt effect EB2 movement. But may make it possible visa numbers increase for EB category by legislation. So we have to support this agitation made by our EB3 friends.
I could seee all the EB3 folks with PD older than 2006 and EB2 folks with PD older than 2008 will be cleared off in the next two years. I am sure there wont be not more than 1 or 2 years delay between EB2 and EB3 categories in near future.And there are lot of things going to happen for employment based immigratin in the next two years.
This EB2 movement of 2 and half years is just a first step by DOS.
2011 Tori Spelling Biography News
conchshell
08-09 01:48 PM
A friend to another: "When I die, I want to die like my grandpa who passed away peacefully in his sleep, but not like the freaked out passengers of the car he was driving."
more...
Macaca
05-16 05:51 PM
Future Tense
Are the United States and China on a collision course? (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/magazine/87879/united-states-china-diplomacy-taiwan)
By Aaron Friedberg | The New Republic
In October 2008, a month after the collapse of Lehman Brothers�with the United States�s financial system seemingly about to buckle and Washington in desperate need of cash to prevent a total economic collapse�a State Department official contacted his Chinese counterpart about China buying U.S. securities. To his surprise, the Chinese, who had previously displayed an insatiable appetite for U.S. Treasury bills, suddenly balked at lending a hand. The reason, the Chinese official said, was the recent announcement of an impending sale of U.S. armaments to Taiwan.
This not-so-subtle threat, detailed in a memo released by Wikileaks, turned out to be a bluff, but it signaled a striking shift in the tone and content of Chinese foreign policy. Over the course of the past two years, Beijing has adopted a more assertive posture in its dealings with Washington, as well as with many of America�s allies in Asia. Among other things, China has threatened for the first time to impose sanctions on U.S. companies involved in arms sales to Taiwan; intensified its claims to virtually all of the resource-rich South China Sea; and conducted its largest-ever naval exercises in the Western Pacific.
America�s �China hands� have long attributed any tensions between the two countries to misunderstandings or readily correctable policy errors. But with the passage of time it has become increasingly apparent that the differences between China and the United States spring from deeply rooted sources and aren�t likely to be resolved anytime soon. Indeed, as recent events suggest, it appears that the two nations are in for a long, tense, perhaps even dangerous struggle. And, most disconcerting of all, it�s a struggle in which, at least for the moment, China seems to be gaining the upper hand.
If you look back over the last 2,500 years�from the days of Athens and Sparta through the cold war�there has inevitably been mistrust, rivalry, and often open conflict between leading global powers and rising states that seek to displace them. In these scenarios, the leading power has wanted to preserve its privileges, while fearing that emerging challengers would seek to overturn the international order that it dominates. Rising powers, for their part, chafe at hierarchies of influence that were put in place when they were relatively weak.
Much of the tension in today�s U.S.-China relationship is a reflection of this familiar dynamic. But this tension is exacerbated by an additional factor that has only sometimes been present in great power rivalries of the past: deep ideological differences. One often hears it said that, because China is no longer truly a communist country, ideology has ceased to be a factor in its relations with the United States. This misses the point. Today�s Chinese leaders may no longer be anti-capitalist Marxists but they govern as Leninists and, as such, are determined to preserve the Communist Party�s exclusive monopoly on political power. China�s rulers see the United States as intent on spreading its brand of democracy to every corner of the earth. For their part, the American people continue to eye with suspicion a regime they see as repressive and autocratic. Ideology may not be sufficient, in itself, to provoke conflict between the United States and China, but it aggravates and amplifies the geopolitical tensions between the two.
This backdrop of great power rivalry and sharp ideological disagreement helps to explain U.S. policies toward China and Chinese policies toward the United States. In contrast to the cold war strategy of containment, America�s strategy for dealing with China has never been codified in official documents or given a name. But over the past two decades, roughly the same strategy has been employed by both Republicans (Bush 41 and Bush 43) and Democrats (Clinton and now Obama). Broadly speaking, the aim has been to discourage Beijing from seeking to challenge America�s interests and those of our allies in Asia, while at the same time nudging China toward democracy. To accomplish these ends, American policymakers have employed a dual approach. On the one hand, they have sought extensive economic and diplomatic engagement with China. The hope has been that these interactions will �tame� China by giving it a stake in the existing international order�and, over the long run, encourage the growth of a middle class and the spread of liberal values, thereby pushing the country gently and indirectly down the path toward democracy. At the same time, Washington has worked to preserve a balance of power in East Asia that is favorable to its interests and those of its allies. This began in earnest following the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1995-1996, when Beijing test-fired missiles in an attempt to influence the outcome of Taiwanese elections, and the Clinton administration dispatched two aircraft carriers in response. Since then, the United States has taken steps to strengthen its military capabilities in the region, while solidifying bonds with partners old (South Korea, Japan, Australia) and new (India).
China�s strategy for dealing with the United States developed somewhat more deliberately. In the wake of Tiananmen Square and the collapse of the Soviet Union, China�s leaders recognized that the previous rationale for cooperation with the United States no longer applied. They feared that, having toppled one communist giant, the Americans would turn their attention to the other. Surveying the scene in 1991, Deng Xiaoping circulated a brief memo to his top party colleagues. The essential message of the so-called �24 Character Strategy� was that China had little choice but to �hide its capabilities and bide its time.� That meant avoiding confrontation with other states, especially the United States, while working to build up all aspects of its power�economic, military, technological, and political.
Recently, Chinese foreign policy has taken on a more assertive tone; but its overall aims have not changed much in two decades. Above all, the current regime wants to preserve indefinitely the Chinese Communist Party�s grip on political power; it seeks, in effect, to make the world safe for continued CCP rule. In part for this reason, China�s leaders want to restore their country to its place as the preponderant regional power. This requires reducing the influence of the United States in East Asia, constricting its presence, and perhaps eventually extruding it from the region. Chinese officials allude to this objective with varying degrees of subtlety. When I worked in the Bush administration from 2003 to 2005, I had several conversations with Chinese diplomats in which they said, almost in passing, that, while the United States might be a Pacific power, it was, of course, not an Asian power. Rather more bluntly, in 2007, a Chinese admiral reportedly told his American counterpart that their two countries should divide the Pacific between them, with China taking everything west of Hawaii.
Are the United States and China on a collision course? (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/magazine/87879/united-states-china-diplomacy-taiwan)
By Aaron Friedberg | The New Republic
In October 2008, a month after the collapse of Lehman Brothers�with the United States�s financial system seemingly about to buckle and Washington in desperate need of cash to prevent a total economic collapse�a State Department official contacted his Chinese counterpart about China buying U.S. securities. To his surprise, the Chinese, who had previously displayed an insatiable appetite for U.S. Treasury bills, suddenly balked at lending a hand. The reason, the Chinese official said, was the recent announcement of an impending sale of U.S. armaments to Taiwan.
This not-so-subtle threat, detailed in a memo released by Wikileaks, turned out to be a bluff, but it signaled a striking shift in the tone and content of Chinese foreign policy. Over the course of the past two years, Beijing has adopted a more assertive posture in its dealings with Washington, as well as with many of America�s allies in Asia. Among other things, China has threatened for the first time to impose sanctions on U.S. companies involved in arms sales to Taiwan; intensified its claims to virtually all of the resource-rich South China Sea; and conducted its largest-ever naval exercises in the Western Pacific.
America�s �China hands� have long attributed any tensions between the two countries to misunderstandings or readily correctable policy errors. But with the passage of time it has become increasingly apparent that the differences between China and the United States spring from deeply rooted sources and aren�t likely to be resolved anytime soon. Indeed, as recent events suggest, it appears that the two nations are in for a long, tense, perhaps even dangerous struggle. And, most disconcerting of all, it�s a struggle in which, at least for the moment, China seems to be gaining the upper hand.
If you look back over the last 2,500 years�from the days of Athens and Sparta through the cold war�there has inevitably been mistrust, rivalry, and often open conflict between leading global powers and rising states that seek to displace them. In these scenarios, the leading power has wanted to preserve its privileges, while fearing that emerging challengers would seek to overturn the international order that it dominates. Rising powers, for their part, chafe at hierarchies of influence that were put in place when they were relatively weak.
Much of the tension in today�s U.S.-China relationship is a reflection of this familiar dynamic. But this tension is exacerbated by an additional factor that has only sometimes been present in great power rivalries of the past: deep ideological differences. One often hears it said that, because China is no longer truly a communist country, ideology has ceased to be a factor in its relations with the United States. This misses the point. Today�s Chinese leaders may no longer be anti-capitalist Marxists but they govern as Leninists and, as such, are determined to preserve the Communist Party�s exclusive monopoly on political power. China�s rulers see the United States as intent on spreading its brand of democracy to every corner of the earth. For their part, the American people continue to eye with suspicion a regime they see as repressive and autocratic. Ideology may not be sufficient, in itself, to provoke conflict between the United States and China, but it aggravates and amplifies the geopolitical tensions between the two.
This backdrop of great power rivalry and sharp ideological disagreement helps to explain U.S. policies toward China and Chinese policies toward the United States. In contrast to the cold war strategy of containment, America�s strategy for dealing with China has never been codified in official documents or given a name. But over the past two decades, roughly the same strategy has been employed by both Republicans (Bush 41 and Bush 43) and Democrats (Clinton and now Obama). Broadly speaking, the aim has been to discourage Beijing from seeking to challenge America�s interests and those of our allies in Asia, while at the same time nudging China toward democracy. To accomplish these ends, American policymakers have employed a dual approach. On the one hand, they have sought extensive economic and diplomatic engagement with China. The hope has been that these interactions will �tame� China by giving it a stake in the existing international order�and, over the long run, encourage the growth of a middle class and the spread of liberal values, thereby pushing the country gently and indirectly down the path toward democracy. At the same time, Washington has worked to preserve a balance of power in East Asia that is favorable to its interests and those of its allies. This began in earnest following the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1995-1996, when Beijing test-fired missiles in an attempt to influence the outcome of Taiwanese elections, and the Clinton administration dispatched two aircraft carriers in response. Since then, the United States has taken steps to strengthen its military capabilities in the region, while solidifying bonds with partners old (South Korea, Japan, Australia) and new (India).
China�s strategy for dealing with the United States developed somewhat more deliberately. In the wake of Tiananmen Square and the collapse of the Soviet Union, China�s leaders recognized that the previous rationale for cooperation with the United States no longer applied. They feared that, having toppled one communist giant, the Americans would turn their attention to the other. Surveying the scene in 1991, Deng Xiaoping circulated a brief memo to his top party colleagues. The essential message of the so-called �24 Character Strategy� was that China had little choice but to �hide its capabilities and bide its time.� That meant avoiding confrontation with other states, especially the United States, while working to build up all aspects of its power�economic, military, technological, and political.
Recently, Chinese foreign policy has taken on a more assertive tone; but its overall aims have not changed much in two decades. Above all, the current regime wants to preserve indefinitely the Chinese Communist Party�s grip on political power; it seeks, in effect, to make the world safe for continued CCP rule. In part for this reason, China�s leaders want to restore their country to its place as the preponderant regional power. This requires reducing the influence of the United States in East Asia, constricting its presence, and perhaps eventually extruding it from the region. Chinese officials allude to this objective with varying degrees of subtlety. When I worked in the Bush administration from 2003 to 2005, I had several conversations with Chinese diplomats in which they said, almost in passing, that, while the United States might be a Pacific power, it was, of course, not an Asian power. Rather more bluntly, in 2007, a Chinese admiral reportedly told his American counterpart that their two countries should divide the Pacific between them, with China taking everything west of Hawaii.
texcan
08-05 04:05 PM
Sorry , you can't hide your passive aggressiveness :)
AS I mentioned on other occasions this whole process is screwed up. it gets you worked up when some one compares this (PD recapture) to labor selling. IT IS NOT.
To answer what does one get by comparing the job duties : It gives a lot. It gives EB2 classification only to those who deserve it. I wish the rules are much stricter.So that those who can claim they are EB2 are really entitled to be EB2.
There is so much dirty laundry and not good to bring that in public. But if this law suite goes , it does not take very long to show how genuine some EB2s are.
I agree, I am no saint, i have my shortcomings; actually more than i would like.
My point is please listen to others folks, and be nice.
We really cant get anything done hereby arguing.
AS I mentioned on other occasions this whole process is screwed up. it gets you worked up when some one compares this (PD recapture) to labor selling. IT IS NOT.
To answer what does one get by comparing the job duties : It gives a lot. It gives EB2 classification only to those who deserve it. I wish the rules are much stricter.So that those who can claim they are EB2 are really entitled to be EB2.
There is so much dirty laundry and not good to bring that in public. But if this law suite goes , it does not take very long to show how genuine some EB2s are.
I agree, I am no saint, i have my shortcomings; actually more than i would like.
My point is please listen to others folks, and be nice.
We really cant get anything done hereby arguing.
more...
amoljak
07-10 09:14 AM
Did anybody contradict this caller on the show? Is the recorded show available online?
2010 tori spelling chicken,
nogc_noproblem
08-06 06:51 PM
George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, and Bill Gates were called in by God.
God informed them that he was very unhappy about what was going on in this world. Since things were so bad, he told the three that he was destroying the Earth in three days.
They were all allowed to return to their homes and businesses, and tell their friends and colleagues what was happening. God did tell them though, that no matter what they did he was "not" changing his mind.
So, W. went in and told his staff, "I have good news and bad news for you. First the good news . . . there is a God. The bad news is that he is destroying the Earth in 3 days."
Putin went back and told his staff, "I have bad news and more bad news. The first was . . . there is a God. The second was that he is destroying the Earth in 3 days."
Bill Gates went back and told his staff, "I have good news and good news. First . . . God thinks I am one of the three most important people in the world. Second . . . you don't have to fix the bugs in Windows Vista."
God informed them that he was very unhappy about what was going on in this world. Since things were so bad, he told the three that he was destroying the Earth in three days.
They were all allowed to return to their homes and businesses, and tell their friends and colleagues what was happening. God did tell them though, that no matter what they did he was "not" changing his mind.
So, W. went in and told his staff, "I have good news and bad news for you. First the good news . . . there is a God. The bad news is that he is destroying the Earth in 3 days."
Putin went back and told his staff, "I have bad news and more bad news. The first was . . . there is a God. The second was that he is destroying the Earth in 3 days."
Bill Gates went back and told his staff, "I have good news and good news. First . . . God thinks I am one of the three most important people in the world. Second . . . you don't have to fix the bugs in Windows Vista."
more...
StuckInTheMuck
08-08 04:40 PM
Two alligators are sitting on the edge of a swamp. The small one turns to the big one and says, "I don't understand how you can be so much bigger than me. We're the same age, we were the same size as kids. I just don't get it."
"Well," says the big alligator, "What have you been eating?"
"Immigration attorneys, same as you," replies the small alligator.
"Hm. Well, where do you catch 'em?"
"Down at that law firm on the edge of the swamp."
"Same here. Hm. How do you catch 'em?"
"Well, I crawl under a BMW and wait for someone to unlock the door. Then I jump out, bite 'em, shake the crap out of 'em, and eat 'em!"
"Ah!" says the big alligator, "I think I see your problem. See, by the time you get done shakin' the crap out of an immigration lawyer, there's nothin' left but lips and a briefcase."
"Well," says the big alligator, "What have you been eating?"
"Immigration attorneys, same as you," replies the small alligator.
"Hm. Well, where do you catch 'em?"
"Down at that law firm on the edge of the swamp."
"Same here. Hm. How do you catch 'em?"
"Well, I crawl under a BMW and wait for someone to unlock the door. Then I jump out, bite 'em, shake the crap out of 'em, and eat 'em!"
"Ah!" says the big alligator, "I think I see your problem. See, by the time you get done shakin' the crap out of an immigration lawyer, there's nothin' left but lips and a briefcase."
hair Tori Spelling Shows Us What#39;s
Refugee_New
01-06 12:45 PM
Discussion of non EB related issues should be stopped.
This form should be used for employment related immigration issues, end of discussion.
I have given you green for it.
Why do you want to end this discussion? Are you scared of speaking the truth or you don't care the killing of innocent school kids?
This form should be used for employment related immigration issues, end of discussion.
I have given you green for it.
Why do you want to end this discussion? Are you scared of speaking the truth or you don't care the killing of innocent school kids?
more...
Macaca
07-28 07:43 AM
Democratic Leaders Agree on Overhaul of Lobbying (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28lobby.html?hp) By CARL HULSE New York Times, July 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
hot once about Tori Spelling,
learning01
05-24 12:51 PM
still trolling Lou.
You can feel the vengence of Lou against immigrants in the tone, in the voice in the tenor and above all in the content and subject matter.
I can't sit quietly if someone on this forum speaks highly of Lou. But soon we must end this discussion, if Communique continues his rant. We need other things on the forum, like sending web fax #15, following senate live discussions. Such bill comes up only once in one's lifetime.
"Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?"
I think thoughtful and rational are NOT two words you would use to describe a Lou Dobbs broadcast. :D
Extremely one sided, hateful, demagogry, those words would be more accurate.
You can feel the vengence of Lou against immigrants in the tone, in the voice in the tenor and above all in the content and subject matter.
I can't sit quietly if someone on this forum speaks highly of Lou. But soon we must end this discussion, if Communique continues his rant. We need other things on the forum, like sending web fax #15, following senate live discussions. Such bill comes up only once in one's lifetime.
"Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?"
I think thoughtful and rational are NOT two words you would use to describe a Lou Dobbs broadcast. :D
Extremely one sided, hateful, demagogry, those words would be more accurate.
more...
house Tori Spelling#39;s Not Doing
Macaca
05-18 05:29 PM
Why Ai Weiwei's case matters for the future of China on the world stage (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100088312/why-ai-weiweis-case-matters-for-the-future-of-china-on-the-world-stage/) By Peter Foster | Telegraph
There’s a perception in Britain that human rights issues in China are really just a hobby-horse of the liberal left, an issue that only bothers people who pay an annual subscription to Amnesty International.
That’s a big mistake, because human rights – or more broadly, political reforms and good governance – are the fundamental key to China emerging this century as a developed and stable nation. Everyone has an interest in making that happen.
A recent report from France’s INSEAD business school picked up by the Wall Street Journal traces the clear correlation between good governance (rule of law, property rights etc) and prosperity.
Economically oligarchies and authoritarian states stall when they hit per-capital income levels of about USD$15,000 a per head. China is predicted to reach USD$8,300 this year, which means the time when these issues are starting to press is fast approaching.
“Without reform, growth is not sustainable,” says Antonio Fatas, an economist at INSEAD and co-author of the study, “This has clear implications for China and other countries.”
That’s why Jim O’Neill of Goldman Sachs, on a visit to China last week, said that his biggest worry for China was not near-term inflation, or asset bubbles or bad debts but the Communist Party’s long-term ability to adapt politically to a new world.
Asked about risks to the ongoing China story, Mr O’Neill (the man who coined the BRICs acronym) cited inflation and rising protectionism in Washington as “small” risks, before sounding his note of real caution.
“The third thing [risk to China], that’s much longer term; as Chinese people get wealthier, the Chinese central party machine has to adapt more and more to keep in synch with what Chinese people want, and that might be a real challenge,” he warned.
That’s why Ai Weiwei’s case matters – not just as an individual human being (though he does) but also because his case is symptomatic of the failure of China’s ruling Communist Party to create credible political institutions in which the rest of the world can have faith.
As Markus Loning, Germany’s human rights commissioner, said this week in Beijing. “It is not about a single case, but the rule of law. If we want to have development, it is important for people to claim that they are protected [by the law].”
The world must speak up over the detention of Ai Weiwei (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8515705/The-world-must-speak-up-over-the-detention-of-Ai-Weiwei.html) By Boris Johnson | Telegraph
Australia's multilateralism fetish (http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/05/18/Multilateralism-Time-to-rip-off-the-band-aid.aspx) By Michael Wesley | The Interpreter
Will violence in Mexico impact immigrant pool in US? (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2011/0517/Will-violence-in-Mexico-impact-immigrant-pool-in-US) By Sara Miller Llana | The Christian Science Monitor
Let us deport the bad guys
Critics are wrong: The Secure Communities program works. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-baca-immigration-20110517,0,7647155.story)
By Lee Baca | Los Angeles Times
Hispanic Growth Shapes 2012 Race (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281504576327200008543470.html) By GERALD F. SEIB | Wall Street Journal
E-2 visa helps many non-U.S. citizens start small firms (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-smallbiz-visa-20110516,0,7260673.story) By Cyndia Zwahlen | Los Angeles Times
There’s a perception in Britain that human rights issues in China are really just a hobby-horse of the liberal left, an issue that only bothers people who pay an annual subscription to Amnesty International.
That’s a big mistake, because human rights – or more broadly, political reforms and good governance – are the fundamental key to China emerging this century as a developed and stable nation. Everyone has an interest in making that happen.
A recent report from France’s INSEAD business school picked up by the Wall Street Journal traces the clear correlation between good governance (rule of law, property rights etc) and prosperity.
Economically oligarchies and authoritarian states stall when they hit per-capital income levels of about USD$15,000 a per head. China is predicted to reach USD$8,300 this year, which means the time when these issues are starting to press is fast approaching.
“Without reform, growth is not sustainable,” says Antonio Fatas, an economist at INSEAD and co-author of the study, “This has clear implications for China and other countries.”
That’s why Jim O’Neill of Goldman Sachs, on a visit to China last week, said that his biggest worry for China was not near-term inflation, or asset bubbles or bad debts but the Communist Party’s long-term ability to adapt politically to a new world.
Asked about risks to the ongoing China story, Mr O’Neill (the man who coined the BRICs acronym) cited inflation and rising protectionism in Washington as “small” risks, before sounding his note of real caution.
“The third thing [risk to China], that’s much longer term; as Chinese people get wealthier, the Chinese central party machine has to adapt more and more to keep in synch with what Chinese people want, and that might be a real challenge,” he warned.
That’s why Ai Weiwei’s case matters – not just as an individual human being (though he does) but also because his case is symptomatic of the failure of China’s ruling Communist Party to create credible political institutions in which the rest of the world can have faith.
As Markus Loning, Germany’s human rights commissioner, said this week in Beijing. “It is not about a single case, but the rule of law. If we want to have development, it is important for people to claim that they are protected [by the law].”
The world must speak up over the detention of Ai Weiwei (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8515705/The-world-must-speak-up-over-the-detention-of-Ai-Weiwei.html) By Boris Johnson | Telegraph
Australia's multilateralism fetish (http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/05/18/Multilateralism-Time-to-rip-off-the-band-aid.aspx) By Michael Wesley | The Interpreter
Will violence in Mexico impact immigrant pool in US? (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2011/0517/Will-violence-in-Mexico-impact-immigrant-pool-in-US) By Sara Miller Llana | The Christian Science Monitor
Let us deport the bad guys
Critics are wrong: The Secure Communities program works. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-baca-immigration-20110517,0,7647155.story)
By Lee Baca | Los Angeles Times
Hispanic Growth Shapes 2012 Race (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281504576327200008543470.html) By GERALD F. SEIB | Wall Street Journal
E-2 visa helps many non-U.S. citizens start small firms (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-smallbiz-visa-20110516,0,7260673.story) By Cyndia Zwahlen | Los Angeles Times
tattoo Tori Spelling
Eternal_Hope
03-29 09:15 AM
I was watching Lou Dobbs yesterday he was discussing STRIVE act being introduced in house,
He pulled out a slide which says they bring 2 million legals every year and part of which said 400,000 H1Bs every year,
Where does he get this number when anual quota is only 65K, can some one verify this
I have seen him do this earlier also. I think he adds the dependants too. So, what he is saying is that with every H-1B comes 5 or 6 dependants!!!!
He pulled out a slide which says they bring 2 million legals every year and part of which said 400,000 H1Bs every year,
Where does he get this number when anual quota is only 65K, can some one verify this
I have seen him do this earlier also. I think he adds the dependants too. So, what he is saying is that with every H-1B comes 5 or 6 dependants!!!!
more...
pictures Tori Spelling | Celebrities#39;
desi3933
07-08 07:38 AM
This is what I found in my research so far.
"Any out of status is ERASED after re-entry in the USA. For employment related I-485 application, out of status is counted ONLY after last entry and out of status upto 180 days is forgiven under section 245(k). Section 245(k) applies to ALL employment based I-485."
Section 245(k) is the BIGGEST difference between employment based I-485 and family based I-485
but I couldn`t find more about section 245 .I searched USCIS site.I don`t know what will get through the officer`s head.
If you are using quote from my post, may be you should mention that. Also, Please understand that issue becomes more complex when one files for more than one I-485 application.
Please consult a good attorney ASAP.
Here are details on 245(k) --
For purposes of section 245(k), an alien may adjust under section 245(a) as long as the alien, as of the date of filing of I-485 application, has not violated status, has not engaged in unlawful employment, and has not had any violations of the terms and conditions of nonimmigrant admission, for a period in excess of 180 days in the aggregate subsequent to the alien's last admission under which he/she is presently in the United States.
_____________________
Not a legal advice.
"Any out of status is ERASED after re-entry in the USA. For employment related I-485 application, out of status is counted ONLY after last entry and out of status upto 180 days is forgiven under section 245(k). Section 245(k) applies to ALL employment based I-485."
Section 245(k) is the BIGGEST difference between employment based I-485 and family based I-485
but I couldn`t find more about section 245 .I searched USCIS site.I don`t know what will get through the officer`s head.
If you are using quote from my post, may be you should mention that. Also, Please understand that issue becomes more complex when one files for more than one I-485 application.
Please consult a good attorney ASAP.
Here are details on 245(k) --
For purposes of section 245(k), an alien may adjust under section 245(a) as long as the alien, as of the date of filing of I-485 application, has not violated status, has not engaged in unlawful employment, and has not had any violations of the terms and conditions of nonimmigrant admission, for a period in excess of 180 days in the aggregate subsequent to the alien's last admission under which he/she is presently in the United States.
_____________________
Not a legal advice.
dresses This marks Spelling#39;s very
sk2006
06-05 02:53 PM
Totally agree ! To add, the decision to buy a house for people like us (who are stuck in this muck) also depends on the life situation you are in. Meaning, the decision to buy a house inspite of the uncertainity was over-weighed by the fact that my kids need to enjoy certain things. Watching them play with kids of their age in the neighborhood, riding a bicycle or playing with the water sprinkler while I sip my beer is priceless.
Yeah, but why do you have to BUY that house to live in it if in the same neighbor hood same or similar house can be rented at much lower price?
Kids can still play and enjoy the sprinklers and you can still enjoy your beer. Isn't it?
Infact we have attached a sense of pride in owning even if we can't afford it. I am not talking about you but in general. People bought 700K houses in 100K salary. And this is a VERY good salary but it still can't afford a 700K house!
Yeah, but why do you have to BUY that house to live in it if in the same neighbor hood same or similar house can be rented at much lower price?
Kids can still play and enjoy the sprinklers and you can still enjoy your beer. Isn't it?
Infact we have attached a sense of pride in owning even if we can't afford it. I am not talking about you but in general. People bought 700K houses in 100K salary. And this is a VERY good salary but it still can't afford a 700K house!
more...
makeup BREAKING: Tori Spelling
immique
07-14 10:10 PM
why did you not sue your employer saying that he improperly filed the petition in EB3. you should have done it long time back and you can still do it. If you do not want to do it, you should have switched employers and refiled in EB2 with a different employer. personally I do not prefer to work for any such employer who does not understand the true value of your skills. such isolated experiences are not a justification for circumventing EB preference laws.
Why do you write 'I know this mess is depressing for EB3 folks' ?
Is IV not with Eb3 folks? Or are they not important.
Let me clear somethings.
Earning in higher 70Ks in the year 2003 and with over 5+ years of progressive experience, they still went ahead a filed my app under EB3. Was that a mistake? Not mine. My employer knew that Eb3 would be slower.
What happened? cases like mine were eye openers and learning experiences for comrades who were going to file and they filed under EB2, I asked friends and relatives and classmates of mine to file under Eb2.
Am i happy for them? No, I hate them. Of course, I am happy for them. Very very much.
So, why would you not fight for us?
If people like me and filers before me had not filed under EB3, and not shared our experiences, how would we have progressed?
Suddenly, 'You Eb3 folks are depressed' from 'We folks are depressed'. lol for chauvinism.
Why do you write 'I know this mess is depressing for EB3 folks' ?
Is IV not with Eb3 folks? Or are they not important.
Let me clear somethings.
Earning in higher 70Ks in the year 2003 and with over 5+ years of progressive experience, they still went ahead a filed my app under EB3. Was that a mistake? Not mine. My employer knew that Eb3 would be slower.
What happened? cases like mine were eye openers and learning experiences for comrades who were going to file and they filed under EB2, I asked friends and relatives and classmates of mine to file under Eb2.
Am i happy for them? No, I hate them. Of course, I am happy for them. Very very much.
So, why would you not fight for us?
If people like me and filers before me had not filed under EB3, and not shared our experiences, how would we have progressed?
Suddenly, 'You Eb3 folks are depressed' from 'We folks are depressed'. lol for chauvinism.
girlfriend Tori Spelling
unitednations
07-10 03:21 PM
UN, I am impressed by your knowledge of immigration laws. Can you point me in right direction as to where I find information regarding the current immigration laws and their interpretations.
I'll tell you how I did it:
1) USCIS administrative appeals office decisions (can be found by navigating around USCIS.GOV
2) USCIS memos/interpretations/policies (can also be found on uscis)
3) Go to department of state web-site. Navigate around it and you will find links to their procedures and interpretations
4) monitor the forums and see postings
5) immigration portal used to have links or summaries to AILA liaision minutes with service centers
6) people used to send me their rfe's, denials and what they lawyers did to get them into the mess. Basically learning how people got into a mess and what uscis did to catch them or to deny their cases
7) go to dol.gov and look for foreign labor certification; there are FAQ's on perm labors and h-1b
8) go to uscis.gov and read the INA and CFR's
--------------------------------------------------------------
If a person is used to reading laws and understanding the hierarchy and then intertwining uscis procedure along with the various service center procedure then you will start to get a clearer understanding.
All of the information is public. Don't rely on what your friend told you as they usually only know what someone else told them.
I had a non compete agreement when I left my employer and couldn't work for one year. During that year; I had nothing to do other then watch tv and watch the portal. No matter how small a question was asked/posted I researched it through all the sources I mentioned above.
Finally; don't do what you think is right or "gut feeling"...
Research it; research it and research it some more. Sometimes what you read at first glance; you make a conclusion to your own benefit without understanding all the other laws/policies/procedures that override it.
I'll tell you how I did it:
1) USCIS administrative appeals office decisions (can be found by navigating around USCIS.GOV
2) USCIS memos/interpretations/policies (can also be found on uscis)
3) Go to department of state web-site. Navigate around it and you will find links to their procedures and interpretations
4) monitor the forums and see postings
5) immigration portal used to have links or summaries to AILA liaision minutes with service centers
6) people used to send me their rfe's, denials and what they lawyers did to get them into the mess. Basically learning how people got into a mess and what uscis did to catch them or to deny their cases
7) go to dol.gov and look for foreign labor certification; there are FAQ's on perm labors and h-1b
8) go to uscis.gov and read the INA and CFR's
--------------------------------------------------------------
If a person is used to reading laws and understanding the hierarchy and then intertwining uscis procedure along with the various service center procedure then you will start to get a clearer understanding.
All of the information is public. Don't rely on what your friend told you as they usually only know what someone else told them.
I had a non compete agreement when I left my employer and couldn't work for one year. During that year; I had nothing to do other then watch tv and watch the portal. No matter how small a question was asked/posted I researched it through all the sources I mentioned above.
Finally; don't do what you think is right or "gut feeling"...
Research it; research it and research it some more. Sometimes what you read at first glance; you make a conclusion to your own benefit without understanding all the other laws/policies/procedures that override it.
hairstyles Tori Spelling
.jpg "Tori Spelling AP Photo/Richard")
fide_champ
04-05 04:05 PM
:eek:
I have been reading this thread with a lot of interest and could not hold back from commenting on the unbridled optimism many of you guys are showing towards the housing market, which reminds me of the "long tailed" euphoria that followed long after the NASDAQ had crashed over 50% in 2001 after the tech bubble, and people kept wishing it would come back long after it became clear to most cynical observers that it would take decades to achieve the same levels as before (and it hasn't yet)...
Housing has not yet bottomed. It still has a long way to go. You guys may think that the foreclosures related to subprime resets have subsided so the market may recover. You haven't seen anything yet. Consider:
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/loan-matrix.jpg
and:
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/adjustable-rate-mortgage-reset-schedule.jpg
Option ARMs (adjustable rate mortgages) and Alt-A ARMs are the next two shoes to drop. In case you've had your head buried in the sand, the economy is on verge of a collapse. Unemployment is soaring and many more companies are considering layoffs. Many economic observers are opining that we are already in recession.
Desi junta, and others, I entreat you readers to please consider this seriously in your house purchase decisions. If for some reason you need to sell and move out, at a minimum you will be saving some money (by not losing your downpayment, for example) by choosing to rent. Rent a house/townhouse from a private owner if you are tired of renting an apartment and have growing kids - it's a "renters market" in the private rental marketplace right now with so many investment properties purchased during the housing bubble available for rent.
I would like to offer up a few blogs, whose commentators should be taken seriously. I recommend you read and bookmark the following blogs if you want to follow the housing market and the economy:
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/
http://housingpanic.blogspot.com/
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
I like this website for people just starting out to get more financially educated (in an entertaining way):
http://www.minyanville.com/
Good luck and please be careful before 'taking the plunge!'
jung.lee,
I do share the same concern as you. But after doing a little bit of research about housing in my area, i did figure out that housing in good school areas are always in demand. So it's probably more important than ever to buy in a good school district if anybody is buying. Moreover in NJ you hardly have any land left to build any new houses, so there are not a lot of houses on the market in some areas. I am kind of relieved a little to buy it in the area i am buying. The job losses are a concern though. Right now it's only in the financial field but it could affect other industries also. But it's still a cycle and everytime we see some recession looming, it's been advertised as the worst in recent history still people live and come thru it. Some suffer losses going thru it, some doesn't get affected. During last recession, people lost millions in stocks and some my own friends lost more then 50K and that is no better than the situation we are in right now. So why worry now?
I have been reading this thread with a lot of interest and could not hold back from commenting on the unbridled optimism many of you guys are showing towards the housing market, which reminds me of the "long tailed" euphoria that followed long after the NASDAQ had crashed over 50% in 2001 after the tech bubble, and people kept wishing it would come back long after it became clear to most cynical observers that it would take decades to achieve the same levels as before (and it hasn't yet)...
Housing has not yet bottomed. It still has a long way to go. You guys may think that the foreclosures related to subprime resets have subsided so the market may recover. You haven't seen anything yet. Consider:
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/loan-matrix.jpg
and:
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/adjustable-rate-mortgage-reset-schedule.jpg
Option ARMs (adjustable rate mortgages) and Alt-A ARMs are the next two shoes to drop. In case you've had your head buried in the sand, the economy is on verge of a collapse. Unemployment is soaring and many more companies are considering layoffs. Many economic observers are opining that we are already in recession.
Desi junta, and others, I entreat you readers to please consider this seriously in your house purchase decisions. If for some reason you need to sell and move out, at a minimum you will be saving some money (by not losing your downpayment, for example) by choosing to rent. Rent a house/townhouse from a private owner if you are tired of renting an apartment and have growing kids - it's a "renters market" in the private rental marketplace right now with so many investment properties purchased during the housing bubble available for rent.
I would like to offer up a few blogs, whose commentators should be taken seriously. I recommend you read and bookmark the following blogs if you want to follow the housing market and the economy:
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/
http://housingpanic.blogspot.com/
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
I like this website for people just starting out to get more financially educated (in an entertaining way):
http://www.minyanville.com/
Good luck and please be careful before 'taking the plunge!'
jung.lee,
I do share the same concern as you. But after doing a little bit of research about housing in my area, i did figure out that housing in good school areas are always in demand. So it's probably more important than ever to buy in a good school district if anybody is buying. Moreover in NJ you hardly have any land left to build any new houses, so there are not a lot of houses on the market in some areas. I am kind of relieved a little to buy it in the area i am buying. The job losses are a concern though. Right now it's only in the financial field but it could affect other industries also. But it's still a cycle and everytime we see some recession looming, it's been advertised as the worst in recent history still people live and come thru it. Some suffer losses going thru it, some doesn't get affected. During last recession, people lost millions in stocks and some my own friends lost more then 50K and that is no better than the situation we are in right now. So why worry now?
yabadaba
08-11 01:43 PM
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CaseH1B.aspx
you will have to type in cable news in the employer name box
and change the state to Georgia
you will have to type in cable news in the employer name box
and change the state to Georgia
senthil1
05-16 05:29 PM
Infact pro immigrants and Corporations are arguing that shortage of skills and they are not displacing US workers. If that is true why cannot they accept the conditions that they will not displace US workers. If you accept that you do not mind replacing some american workers also then all of your points are valid. Then you can lobby for unlimited H1b and Unlimited greencards. You will never get American people support for that. But we all are lobbying based on the shortage of skills. So we should be ready to reduce H1b when demand goes down or accept the conditions for non displacement of US workers. Right now demand is more so US will absorb even 200K H1bs. But you need to look what happened between 2000 to 2003. So many layoffs. Part of reason was economy but other part was due to H1b and outsourcing
I will accept that 25 year old H1b from India can work 15 to 18 hours a day but same kind of productivity cannot get with 40 year old person with family of 2 kids whether Indian or american. Is it right to replace those person with 25 year old person. If that is the case then you will be replaced by youger H1b person in future.
My view is clear. There should be H1b numbers based on demand and supply. If they cannot come with correct numbers then restriction of non displacement of US workers should be there.
I am not Ronald Regan but I am compelled to say, " There you go again...."
Why are you consistently discussing about H-1B caps. Green card delays are not because of H-1B quota, I am sure you know this. H-1B caps have nothing to do who applied for the H-1s, whether those were consulting companies in US or a company in Japan. You are just saying it consistently in all your posts because you don�t like more people coming here after you are on path to green cards. In all your posts, you have this mid set where the door closes right behind you and more people should not be allowed on H-1. I am sure you qualify to be the member of IEEE-USA. Please Google search for their membership form. Just because the name of the organization is �Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers� doesn�t mean that every thing on their agenda is kosher.
This shows that you have no clue about the reality. You have looked at the IEEE website and formulated the opinion about the nice people at IEEE-USA, who are working overtime for you to get your green card. This is what you think, right? Well! My friend we live in a very strange world in which political organization (like IEEE) show stuff on their website just so that they don�t appear to be outright anti-immigrants.
Also, I do think that anybody who do not want to pick up their ass to find a job and rather chose to whine about someone else taking away the job is lazy and for sure undeserving. They are interested to put restrictions on H-1B because they want to eliminate their competition. Every community/group, big or small, have their opponents and enemies just because of the sheer nature of the competition for resource with other groups/communities. H-1B community now forms substantially large group of people. It is natural that orgs like IEEE-USA will be a natural opponent of H-1B community because there is a competition. Now, most members of IEEE-USA are older and middle aged folks, who are not able to compete with good quality engineers from other parts of the world. The folks on H-1 are young, dynamic and fast learners. IEEE-USA folks cannot compete with this group and so they are working to eliminate competition from H-1B folks by other means. Sometimes they call H-1Bs as indentured servants, sometimes promoting outsourcing, sometimes taking away their jobs and sometime depressing wages. They throw out all sorts of rationale to hurt H-1B community. And some idiots on this and other forums have not clue of the bigger picture and are hell bent on screwing the so called �body shoppers� as if it is ok to work at the client site to do the same job at the same amount if you are employees of KPMG or Accenture or Bearing Point. But it is not ok to do the same thing if you are an employee of TCS, INFY or SIFY etc. If this is not discrimination, then tell me what is????? I sincerely do want to understand your view and please consider me to be totally ignorant person who is here to learn from you. I sincerely mean it.
So you do think that anything associated with the word �IEEE� is gospel. Let me share with you my friend that IEEE and IEEE-USA are totally different organizations. Just like any other organization in the world, IEEE-USA is working to address the issues of their members only. IEEE-USA is working to fix the issues of their members who live in USA ONLY. It has no clue and no desire and no objective to look at any of your issues, no matter what they are. We all acknowledge that are problems with the H-1B program but the question is, Is Durbin-Grassley approach the real solution to the problem? Congress did not address anything associated with H-1B visa for last 6-7 years. If you write to lawmakers they only understand only thing about the word �H-1B� and that is increase in H-1B� that�s it. Now every system in the world needs tweaking from time to time and this has not happened with H-1B program for a very long time. Either way, throwing out people waiting for green cards for 6-7 years is not the solution, putting in restrictions to undermine the entire H-1B program (because they know they will not have enough votes to reduce the visa numbers or eliminate the program) is not the solution, �investigating� companies when they hire someone on H-1B as if hiring someone on H-1B is a crime is not the solution, singling out companies from one country because the guy driving IEEE-USA (Ron Hira) doesn�t want more people to come from India because he hates his heritage � is not the solution. Yes there are problems, but Durbin-Grassley bill is not the solution.
Who needs enemies if we have friends like you? I mean why do you want hard working people to unnecessary go through more problems before getting their green cards, as if the existing problems for us are not enough. You simple want to make the system difficult to test human endurance? You know what, we can do this, how about all the stringent conditions of Durbin-Grassley bill will apply ONLY on you and we are all sure that the �HIGH-SKILLED� that you are, you will pass all the �tests� with flying colors. For rest all the others, please consider us lowly skilled and please set a bar lower to the extent that is humanly achievable, we are not �highly-skilled� super-humans like yourself.
Yes, you have not yet clearly said that �I support banning all H-1Bs�, not in those words, not yet. But reading your posts, it is apparent that you are headed there, as soon as you get your green card. As I said earlier, form now on, just think that all the Durbin-Grassley conditions apply on you and live your life as per the standard set by Durbin-Grassley. For the rest of us, please have mercy on us.
I will accept that 25 year old H1b from India can work 15 to 18 hours a day but same kind of productivity cannot get with 40 year old person with family of 2 kids whether Indian or american. Is it right to replace those person with 25 year old person. If that is the case then you will be replaced by youger H1b person in future.
My view is clear. There should be H1b numbers based on demand and supply. If they cannot come with correct numbers then restriction of non displacement of US workers should be there.
I am not Ronald Regan but I am compelled to say, " There you go again...."
Why are you consistently discussing about H-1B caps. Green card delays are not because of H-1B quota, I am sure you know this. H-1B caps have nothing to do who applied for the H-1s, whether those were consulting companies in US or a company in Japan. You are just saying it consistently in all your posts because you don�t like more people coming here after you are on path to green cards. In all your posts, you have this mid set where the door closes right behind you and more people should not be allowed on H-1. I am sure you qualify to be the member of IEEE-USA. Please Google search for their membership form. Just because the name of the organization is �Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers� doesn�t mean that every thing on their agenda is kosher.
This shows that you have no clue about the reality. You have looked at the IEEE website and formulated the opinion about the nice people at IEEE-USA, who are working overtime for you to get your green card. This is what you think, right? Well! My friend we live in a very strange world in which political organization (like IEEE) show stuff on their website just so that they don�t appear to be outright anti-immigrants.
Also, I do think that anybody who do not want to pick up their ass to find a job and rather chose to whine about someone else taking away the job is lazy and for sure undeserving. They are interested to put restrictions on H-1B because they want to eliminate their competition. Every community/group, big or small, have their opponents and enemies just because of the sheer nature of the competition for resource with other groups/communities. H-1B community now forms substantially large group of people. It is natural that orgs like IEEE-USA will be a natural opponent of H-1B community because there is a competition. Now, most members of IEEE-USA are older and middle aged folks, who are not able to compete with good quality engineers from other parts of the world. The folks on H-1 are young, dynamic and fast learners. IEEE-USA folks cannot compete with this group and so they are working to eliminate competition from H-1B folks by other means. Sometimes they call H-1Bs as indentured servants, sometimes promoting outsourcing, sometimes taking away their jobs and sometime depressing wages. They throw out all sorts of rationale to hurt H-1B community. And some idiots on this and other forums have not clue of the bigger picture and are hell bent on screwing the so called �body shoppers� as if it is ok to work at the client site to do the same job at the same amount if you are employees of KPMG or Accenture or Bearing Point. But it is not ok to do the same thing if you are an employee of TCS, INFY or SIFY etc. If this is not discrimination, then tell me what is????? I sincerely do want to understand your view and please consider me to be totally ignorant person who is here to learn from you. I sincerely mean it.
So you do think that anything associated with the word �IEEE� is gospel. Let me share with you my friend that IEEE and IEEE-USA are totally different organizations. Just like any other organization in the world, IEEE-USA is working to address the issues of their members only. IEEE-USA is working to fix the issues of their members who live in USA ONLY. It has no clue and no desire and no objective to look at any of your issues, no matter what they are. We all acknowledge that are problems with the H-1B program but the question is, Is Durbin-Grassley approach the real solution to the problem? Congress did not address anything associated with H-1B visa for last 6-7 years. If you write to lawmakers they only understand only thing about the word �H-1B� and that is increase in H-1B� that�s it. Now every system in the world needs tweaking from time to time and this has not happened with H-1B program for a very long time. Either way, throwing out people waiting for green cards for 6-7 years is not the solution, putting in restrictions to undermine the entire H-1B program (because they know they will not have enough votes to reduce the visa numbers or eliminate the program) is not the solution, �investigating� companies when they hire someone on H-1B as if hiring someone on H-1B is a crime is not the solution, singling out companies from one country because the guy driving IEEE-USA (Ron Hira) doesn�t want more people to come from India because he hates his heritage � is not the solution. Yes there are problems, but Durbin-Grassley bill is not the solution.
Who needs enemies if we have friends like you? I mean why do you want hard working people to unnecessary go through more problems before getting their green cards, as if the existing problems for us are not enough. You simple want to make the system difficult to test human endurance? You know what, we can do this, how about all the stringent conditions of Durbin-Grassley bill will apply ONLY on you and we are all sure that the �HIGH-SKILLED� that you are, you will pass all the �tests� with flying colors. For rest all the others, please consider us lowly skilled and please set a bar lower to the extent that is humanly achievable, we are not �highly-skilled� super-humans like yourself.
Yes, you have not yet clearly said that �I support banning all H-1Bs�, not in those words, not yet. But reading your posts, it is apparent that you are headed there, as soon as you get your green card. As I said earlier, form now on, just think that all the Durbin-Grassley conditions apply on you and live your life as per the standard set by Durbin-Grassley. For the rest of us, please have mercy on us.
No comments:
Post a Comment