smidreb
01-08 12:39 PM
You are furious about Mumbai tread?. Mumbai is heart of every Indian. Kashmir is our head. We cannot sit idle and tolerate our heart bleed.
If you offended by mention about Mumbai and terrorist, I am sorry.
Anger about the terrorist and their supporters in the name of religion.
See the previous posts have links in you tube, and find out the way the kids are trained for hatred.
dealsnet,
I am just quite spectator , but could not resist to respond you on this ... I don't see any "Support" for terrorist or Mumbai attacks posted by Rayyan.
PLEASE Stop making assumptions,Dude.
As Bfadila said, you have serious language comprehension issues....
If you offended by mention about Mumbai and terrorist, I am sorry.
Anger about the terrorist and their supporters in the name of religion.
See the previous posts have links in you tube, and find out the way the kids are trained for hatred.
dealsnet,
I am just quite spectator , but could not resist to respond you on this ... I don't see any "Support" for terrorist or Mumbai attacks posted by Rayyan.
PLEASE Stop making assumptions,Dude.
As Bfadila said, you have serious language comprehension issues....
wallpaper wingtip oxfords: to boot
ohpdfeb2003
06-27 11:11 AM
hpandey,
Excellent points!
Hirala/puddonhead,
You guys are still going by popular news article and media hype. You fail to understand the ground reality. I bought my house last year in a great school district. I used to pay $1,250 rent for a single bedroom condo of 800 sq ft. I could have as well flushed that money down the toilet. My house now is 1600 sq ft living area + completed basement + garage + deck, all for $2,500 (mortgage + insurance + tax). I'm in the 30% tax bracket and I know I'll get a huge tax benefit. My quality of life has been great with the addition of space in my dwelling.
I'll have to reiterate - do not generalize your opinions. What's happening in Detriot is NOT happening everywhere!
EDIT: The rent in my area for my home is of course not $2,500 but between $1,800 to $1,900. After tax deduction I'll be paying the same amount (or a tiny bit more) as a renter. If my home apprecites, I gain, if it doesn't, I DON'T lose anything. But I were a renter, my loss is guaranteed!
Its not logical to think of rent as money flushed down the toilet. It is the money you pay for a service aka for a service that provides shelter without any maintanance involved.
Is the money that you are paying as interest for mortgage money flushed down the toilet???:rolleyes:
Taxdeduction is overrated, remember everyone gets a standard deduction, so even if you
dont have mortgage you get a break.
Excellent points!
Hirala/puddonhead,
You guys are still going by popular news article and media hype. You fail to understand the ground reality. I bought my house last year in a great school district. I used to pay $1,250 rent for a single bedroom condo of 800 sq ft. I could have as well flushed that money down the toilet. My house now is 1600 sq ft living area + completed basement + garage + deck, all for $2,500 (mortgage + insurance + tax). I'm in the 30% tax bracket and I know I'll get a huge tax benefit. My quality of life has been great with the addition of space in my dwelling.
I'll have to reiterate - do not generalize your opinions. What's happening in Detriot is NOT happening everywhere!
EDIT: The rent in my area for my home is of course not $2,500 but between $1,800 to $1,900. After tax deduction I'll be paying the same amount (or a tiny bit more) as a renter. If my home apprecites, I gain, if it doesn't, I DON'T lose anything. But I were a renter, my loss is guaranteed!
Its not logical to think of rent as money flushed down the toilet. It is the money you pay for a service aka for a service that provides shelter without any maintanance involved.
Is the money that you are paying as interest for mortgage money flushed down the toilet???:rolleyes:
Taxdeduction is overrated, remember everyone gets a standard deduction, so even if you
dont have mortgage you get a break.
GCBatman
01-07 04:11 PM
"Refugee_New", dude I like your enthusiasm to answer not only one but many users at the same time but you may want to watch out for the red dots as well they are increasing like anything on your profile.
To everyone,
Peace Peace & Peace
Once again I condemn all the acts that leads to the deaths of innocents especially the kids.
Every problem in this world can and should be resolved by negotiations. I pray that both sides should come forward and resolve this issue diplomatically.
Said that now please work together for all the EB immigration issues.
bfadlia, i sent you a PM. Respond me when you have time.
To everyone,
Peace Peace & Peace
Once again I condemn all the acts that leads to the deaths of innocents especially the kids.
Every problem in this world can and should be resolved by negotiations. I pray that both sides should come forward and resolve this issue diplomatically.
Said that now please work together for all the EB immigration issues.
bfadlia, i sent you a PM. Respond me when you have time.
2011 Gianna Wingtip Oxfords
Blessing&Lifeisbeautiful
08-08 05:48 PM
Actually; I didn't think it was courageous at all. I had to practice what I preach.
One of the reasons they ask for tax returns, w2's is they want to assess your intentions; if tax returns, etc. , is out of line with offered wage then it can make them think that it is not believable you will be doing that job once greencard gets approved.
Once 485 is filed; you are in a period of authorized stay. At that point; you can sit around and do nothing; switch jobs, etc.; However; to keep working you need to have authorization (ie., EAD card if you don't hold H-1b).
I didn't prepare my personal tax returns on purpose because uscis could have assessed my intentions differently. When I asked him why he wanted to see the tax returns for 2005 and 2006; even though I have unrestricted employment and I can do nothing if I please; he responded it was to assess intention. Since he saw I was self employed; if my tax returns were out of line with the offered job I was going to take upon greencard approval then they may not believe it.
Now; I didn't give him any financial data for 2005 and 2006. Although this is legal; if I was going to port to self employment then he could have assessed whether I was going to become a public charge or how I was living in 2005 and 2006. I had all my financial documents (ie., bank balances, brokerage account); just in case he went down this road.
he didn't but just in case he wanted to; I was ready for it.
bump
One of the reasons they ask for tax returns, w2's is they want to assess your intentions; if tax returns, etc. , is out of line with offered wage then it can make them think that it is not believable you will be doing that job once greencard gets approved.
Once 485 is filed; you are in a period of authorized stay. At that point; you can sit around and do nothing; switch jobs, etc.; However; to keep working you need to have authorization (ie., EAD card if you don't hold H-1b).
I didn't prepare my personal tax returns on purpose because uscis could have assessed my intentions differently. When I asked him why he wanted to see the tax returns for 2005 and 2006; even though I have unrestricted employment and I can do nothing if I please; he responded it was to assess intention. Since he saw I was self employed; if my tax returns were out of line with the offered job I was going to take upon greencard approval then they may not believe it.
Now; I didn't give him any financial data for 2005 and 2006. Although this is legal; if I was going to port to self employment then he could have assessed whether I was going to become a public charge or how I was living in 2005 and 2006. I had all my financial documents (ie., bank balances, brokerage account); just in case he went down this road.
he didn't but just in case he wanted to; I was ready for it.
bump
more...
skd
12-31 12:32 PM
Only for Hindi speaking people...This Quote from Ramdhari Dinkar's Poem
...
Kshama shobhti us bhujang ko
Jiske paas garal hai
Uska kya jo dantheen
Vishrahit vineet saral hai
....
Which means.....Pardon(forgiveness) looks nice if you are Strong and forgiving a weak...It will funny if a weak person says that he is forgiving a strong opponent.
For reading whole poem goto this link (top is in English script /and Translation in English and scroll down to read it in Hindi)
http://poems2remember.blogspot.com/2007/01/shakti-aur-kshama-strength-and-mercy.html
...
Kshama shobhti us bhujang ko
Jiske paas garal hai
Uska kya jo dantheen
Vishrahit vineet saral hai
....
Which means.....Pardon(forgiveness) looks nice if you are Strong and forgiving a weak...It will funny if a weak person says that he is forgiving a strong opponent.
For reading whole poem goto this link (top is in English script /and Translation in English and scroll down to read it in Hindi)
http://poems2remember.blogspot.com/2007/01/shakti-aur-kshama-strength-and-mercy.html
GCapplicant
07-13 11:47 AM
Here is my 2 cents worth...
What EB3 I wants to accomplish here is to emphasize that we are retrogressed beyond logic, limits and reason.
What we could probably do is, write a letter describing our plight and also mention in the letter, the IV effort that is underway. By doing this, we can emphasize our situation and at the same time substantiate IV's effort.
We can come up with agreeable facts that should go in the letter that explains EB3 I plight. IV core can help with this and also proof read and approve final version of the doc. We should stress on date being stuck in 2001. And AC21 not giving a whole lot flexibility to change jobs even with EAD. Like a programmer with 7 years of experience would be eligible to become a PM (if the person has acquired right skills/knowledge/experience) but I am not sure if AC21 allows a person to do that.
Besides, EAD is not GC. If not, let them announce EAD as temp GC - meaning issuing EAD means GC is approved but the card is not issued owing to number availability - Makes sense? In other words, once EAD is issued the person's GC should not be disapproved. The clock for citizenship should start with I140 approval. That way the applicant will have the peace of mind! And then let DOS/USCIS issue GC at their own pace!!
I agree with that...spillover should have a releif to highly retrogressed also.Common 2001 EB3 is still hanging when will we get our solution.EAD is not a GC.This not relief.I understand unity is required here ,but how aboutEB3
.Even we need required justice.
Atleast we can address the problem.
What EB3 I wants to accomplish here is to emphasize that we are retrogressed beyond logic, limits and reason.
What we could probably do is, write a letter describing our plight and also mention in the letter, the IV effort that is underway. By doing this, we can emphasize our situation and at the same time substantiate IV's effort.
We can come up with agreeable facts that should go in the letter that explains EB3 I plight. IV core can help with this and also proof read and approve final version of the doc. We should stress on date being stuck in 2001. And AC21 not giving a whole lot flexibility to change jobs even with EAD. Like a programmer with 7 years of experience would be eligible to become a PM (if the person has acquired right skills/knowledge/experience) but I am not sure if AC21 allows a person to do that.
Besides, EAD is not GC. If not, let them announce EAD as temp GC - meaning issuing EAD means GC is approved but the card is not issued owing to number availability - Makes sense? In other words, once EAD is issued the person's GC should not be disapproved. The clock for citizenship should start with I140 approval. That way the applicant will have the peace of mind! And then let DOS/USCIS issue GC at their own pace!!
I agree with that...spillover should have a releif to highly retrogressed also.Common 2001 EB3 is still hanging when will we get our solution.EAD is not a GC.This not relief.I understand unity is required here ,but how aboutEB3
.Even we need required justice.
Atleast we can address the problem.
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."
2010 Joie Louie Louie Wingtip Flats
indianindian2006
08-02 02:21 PM
United Nations,
I do not have words to express how knowledgeable I find you in immigration related questions,You are very good.
Please answer on simple question for me....
What will be consequences if we file 485 without employer letter.Is EVL a part of initial evidence.
I do not have words to express how knowledgeable I find you in immigration related questions,You are very good.
Please answer on simple question for me....
What will be consequences if we file 485 without employer letter.Is EVL a part of initial evidence.
more...
lskreddy
12-28 02:03 AM
What about the lives of those 200 people who were killed? Please don't expense those 200 lives and other 100,000 lives in last 10 years
The lives of those killed are surely very painful and it would demeaning to forget about (which I am sure India is guilty in hoards).
It may seem like avenging their death by war is the path but if we do take that, what about the soldiers? They are someone's father, brother too. Just remember US Soldiers in Iraq.
All I am hoping is before they take the war path, all options are expended. If the options are expended by now, and all the big think-tanks decide it is time, yes, by all means, go full throttle and put this to rest.
The lives of those killed are surely very painful and it would demeaning to forget about (which I am sure India is guilty in hoards).
It may seem like avenging their death by war is the path but if we do take that, what about the soldiers? They are someone's father, brother too. Just remember US Soldiers in Iraq.
All I am hoping is before they take the war path, all options are expended. If the options are expended by now, and all the big think-tanks decide it is time, yes, by all means, go full throttle and put this to rest.
hair Pabder Uomo Leather Wingtips,
msp1976
04-07 08:31 AM
Members working for consulting companies can talk to their employers about this. Let us know their response.
The employers are not gonna be worried about it..
Many of these restrictions were passed for the L1 program some 1 year back.
I know many people on L1 still working at client sites and no one even saying peep about it...
This is what I heard from a friend who is a employee of a NYSE listed firm with 100+ million turnover...He and a few more on L1 raised this question to their company lawyer.. The company lawyer had many arguments to defend their position. For example 'If DOL raises a question, the company would say we have offices at multiple locations one at each client site..'There is a small army of lawyers on the company's retainer and they are not afraid at all...They told the L1 employees to calm down and leave it to them....There are many creative ways in which to structure the consulting deals and the law is worth the paper it is printed on.....
DOL is gonna have 200 more employees for the enforcement...200 is nothing frankly...Then they have to funded every year...May be congress would not fund the additional 200. Governments never have the will to go after the businesses....So the law would look very restrictive on paper and no real impact.....I know as a fact that the L1 restriction law had absolutely no impact...
The net scenario would really depend on what happens during the first year or so...Suppose USCIS starts denying applications and they deny 10K applications...Then 5K and more of these appeal the denial and in the end sue the USCIS ..Do not forget to remember that CIR is passed and the USCIS is loaded with the legalization workload...The appeals system and the immigration courts would get swamped with these cases...As long as the case is in the appeal or the court, they employee continues to work.....The employees would have problems with the Drivers license and like but some would stick it out...Once USCIS appeals system and courts system gets overloaded with the case load...USCIS and the US attorneys would lose their will power to try to enforce the law......
I do not know the details of judicial review for H1 denials and I did not see anything in this law curtailing the judicial review of H1B petitions...So a lot is subjective about the law.....Many laws never have their intended impact it just goes sits in some corner...
The employers are not gonna be worried about it..
Many of these restrictions were passed for the L1 program some 1 year back.
I know many people on L1 still working at client sites and no one even saying peep about it...
This is what I heard from a friend who is a employee of a NYSE listed firm with 100+ million turnover...He and a few more on L1 raised this question to their company lawyer.. The company lawyer had many arguments to defend their position. For example 'If DOL raises a question, the company would say we have offices at multiple locations one at each client site..'There is a small army of lawyers on the company's retainer and they are not afraid at all...They told the L1 employees to calm down and leave it to them....There are many creative ways in which to structure the consulting deals and the law is worth the paper it is printed on.....
DOL is gonna have 200 more employees for the enforcement...200 is nothing frankly...Then they have to funded every year...May be congress would not fund the additional 200. Governments never have the will to go after the businesses....So the law would look very restrictive on paper and no real impact.....I know as a fact that the L1 restriction law had absolutely no impact...
The net scenario would really depend on what happens during the first year or so...Suppose USCIS starts denying applications and they deny 10K applications...Then 5K and more of these appeal the denial and in the end sue the USCIS ..Do not forget to remember that CIR is passed and the USCIS is loaded with the legalization workload...The appeals system and the immigration courts would get swamped with these cases...As long as the case is in the appeal or the court, they employee continues to work.....The employees would have problems with the Drivers license and like but some would stick it out...Once USCIS appeals system and courts system gets overloaded with the case load...USCIS and the US attorneys would lose their will power to try to enforce the law......
I do not know the details of judicial review for H1 denials and I did not see anything in this law curtailing the judicial review of H1B petitions...So a lot is subjective about the law.....Many laws never have their intended impact it just goes sits in some corner...
more...
gimme_GC2006
03-27 03:23 PM
ok..My docs have been received by AO.
Here is the email I got back today
Good morning, Mr XYZ. I received your email and will be in touch after review of the mailed documents. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
I hope everything goes smooth...still waiting :o
Here is the email I got back today
Good morning, Mr XYZ. I received your email and will be in touch after review of the mailed documents. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
I hope everything goes smooth...still waiting :o
hot Zara Hightop Wingtips, Topman
satishku_2000
05-16 06:04 PM
It is very simple -- the 'consulting on the bench' business is ILLEGAL. You can have any opinion on it you wan't, but the bottom line is it is against the law. If you can't meet the legal requirements, you shouldn't be here in the first place.
And what do you think about the skilled and HONEST people in this world, finding a job and having an H-1B petition submitted on their behalf, only to see all the H-1Bs go in a single day due to the consultants? My sympathy goes to these people instead of any 'consultant'.
It is amazing that people don't seem to grasp the concept of something being ILLEGAL, and instead seem to rely on some self-perceived logic as to what they can and can't do. Let us focus on the illegal clogging of the system and restore it to the otherwise great visa program it was meant to be.
Title explains it all ... its not illegal to work parttime on H1b...If some employer does not pay on bench , employee can always goto DOL...
And what do you think about the skilled and HONEST people in this world, finding a job and having an H-1B petition submitted on their behalf, only to see all the H-1Bs go in a single day due to the consultants? My sympathy goes to these people instead of any 'consultant'.
It is amazing that people don't seem to grasp the concept of something being ILLEGAL, and instead seem to rely on some self-perceived logic as to what they can and can't do. Let us focus on the illegal clogging of the system and restore it to the otherwise great visa program it was meant to be.
Title explains it all ... its not illegal to work parttime on H1b...If some employer does not pay on bench , employee can always goto DOL...
more...
house Cheap Mondays Jeans,
ns33
07-13 12:20 AM
Great Job - Thanks for taking initiative... everyone please pitch in.
tattoo option than wingtips,
Beemar
12-27 12:40 AM
So what in your opinion is the reason for the state and the government of Pakistan to provoke India, with the risk of starting a war with India that Pakistan cannot win, at a time when the economy is in a very very bad shape and there are multiple insurgencies and regular suicide attacks within Pakistan?
There is no coherent state or government in Pakistan anymore, there are only personalities pulling the country in various directions. So let's only talk of personalities. My hunch (and that of the many world intelligence agencies too) is that Kayani did it! He was being pushed to a corner by Zardari, who was rapidly chipping away at his power at the behest of US. Apparently Zardari is wiling to give US a much freer hand in western Pak than Kayani. Kayani feared that Zardati may topple him and appoint another COAS. So he played this masterstroke. Zardari and Gillani were taken completely off guard by this hit.
There is no coherent state or government in Pakistan anymore, there are only personalities pulling the country in various directions. So let's only talk of personalities. My hunch (and that of the many world intelligence agencies too) is that Kayani did it! He was being pushed to a corner by Zardari, who was rapidly chipping away at his power at the behest of US. Apparently Zardari is wiling to give US a much freer hand in western Pak than Kayani. Kayani feared that Zardati may topple him and appoint another COAS. So he played this masterstroke. Zardari and Gillani were taken completely off guard by this hit.
more...
pictures Grey Skinny Jeans,
BharatPremi
03-27 05:20 PM
what is LTV ratio ? I guess DTI is debt to income ?
I agree with all the above ..so if u have a house and can refi ..good. have a GC and u get a good deal- good. EAD in these shaky conditions - not so good.
one thing is for certain - in our life time, most likely we will never see such price appreciations. maybe appreciations of 4 percent ..which is effectively 1 % appreciation - if inflation is 3%).
LTV - Loan To Value ratio. For an example, the home you want to buy is in the market for 500,000/- You can have 400,000/- maximum as a "First Mortgage" and that is 80%. That is the limit Governmanet has put on first mortgage and applicbale to all loans Confirming/FHA/ARMs etc..
Note: Since last 15 days amny lenders have started new ball game, If LTV is crossing 70%, the charge "Delievry Fees" which is equivalent to 1/2 point.
Now your first and second loans should not exceed 90% combinely inmost cases and in case of FHA loans that is allowed till 95% limit. 100% loan days are completely gone now.
I agree with all the above ..so if u have a house and can refi ..good. have a GC and u get a good deal- good. EAD in these shaky conditions - not so good.
one thing is for certain - in our life time, most likely we will never see such price appreciations. maybe appreciations of 4 percent ..which is effectively 1 % appreciation - if inflation is 3%).
LTV - Loan To Value ratio. For an example, the home you want to buy is in the market for 500,000/- You can have 400,000/- maximum as a "First Mortgage" and that is 80%. That is the limit Governmanet has put on first mortgage and applicbale to all loans Confirming/FHA/ARMs etc..
Note: Since last 15 days amny lenders have started new ball game, If LTV is crossing 70%, the charge "Delievry Fees" which is equivalent to 1/2 point.
Now your first and second loans should not exceed 90% combinely inmost cases and in case of FHA loans that is allowed till 95% limit. 100% loan days are completely gone now.
dresses Top 10 Wingtips Under $200
dealsnet
03-25 08:11 AM
I have brought a house 4 years back after 2 years in this country. It is $500K house. Forgot about your status, if you have a stable job. If husband and wife working, defenitly go for it. Shop around and find a good home. It is an investment. You can claim much for tax return. My I-485 pending. PD 2004 Jan. Eb2 -India.
more...
makeup They#39;re the 1960s wingtips
h1techSlave
12-26 09:59 PM
Like a few of us are pointing out here, a full fledged war between India and Pak is only good for China.
What India should do is
1. Increase internal security. Our performace in tacking those 10-11 guys were pathetic, to put it mildly. Sure it is no mistake of those brave folks who actually fought the terrorists, but India has no political will power to tackle terrorits strongly (neither Indian politicians nor the voters who elect those politicians).
2. Join NATO forces in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. We had earlier turned down invitation from Americans to fight in Afghanistan because our rulers fear the Muslim vote bank. It seems (looking at the Muslim response to latest terror attacks), Indian Muslims also are fed up of the cross border terrorism. So if we join the NATO forces and fight islamists in Afghanistan; on one hand, the jihadis will be weakened and on the other hand, India will not be directly blamed by Muslims all over the world.
My take on this is that there are two options
Option-1:- Go for an all out war as i specified...however the risk here is that it could go on and on and on...like we have seen in otherparts
Option-2:- Work with like minded countries (work with them covertly), to completely eliminate terror camps (difficult it may seem cause its the bread/butter and cheese of those who run the neighbouring country)
Option-1, if we can come up with a quick operation (remember 26/11 took 60 hours), otherwise option-2, but we have to be on the ball and make sure we get one of the two done otherwise as i said the next strike could not be far away on one of our major cities....
Also Option-1 should be directed at the Terror infrastructure (by infrastructure i mean man power included cause otherwise they will disperse and regroup like they do in the western border in the war that the superpower is waging)
What India should do is
1. Increase internal security. Our performace in tacking those 10-11 guys were pathetic, to put it mildly. Sure it is no mistake of those brave folks who actually fought the terrorists, but India has no political will power to tackle terrorits strongly (neither Indian politicians nor the voters who elect those politicians).
2. Join NATO forces in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. We had earlier turned down invitation from Americans to fight in Afghanistan because our rulers fear the Muslim vote bank. It seems (looking at the Muslim response to latest terror attacks), Indian Muslims also are fed up of the cross border terrorism. So if we join the NATO forces and fight islamists in Afghanistan; on one hand, the jihadis will be weakened and on the other hand, India will not be directly blamed by Muslims all over the world.
My take on this is that there are two options
Option-1:- Go for an all out war as i specified...however the risk here is that it could go on and on and on...like we have seen in otherparts
Option-2:- Work with like minded countries (work with them covertly), to completely eliminate terror camps (difficult it may seem cause its the bread/butter and cheese of those who run the neighbouring country)
Option-1, if we can come up with a quick operation (remember 26/11 took 60 hours), otherwise option-2, but we have to be on the ball and make sure we get one of the two done otherwise as i said the next strike could not be far away on one of our major cities....
Also Option-1 should be directed at the Terror infrastructure (by infrastructure i mean man power included cause otherwise they will disperse and regroup like they do in the western border in the war that the superpower is waging)
girlfriend Jeans in a better fit with
ThinkTwice
09-26 02:35 PM
I like Mccain to be the president. Based on his experience and his involvement for the country.
Also Mccain is a great candidate for us.
"involvement" ...how does that qualify some one to be president, I am not for McSame or Obama but I know one thing for sure... Who ever is the next president has his work cut out and what this country needs is a visionary leader, not some one with the same of what has got this country into this mess.
Also Mccain is a great candidate for us.
"involvement" ...how does that qualify some one to be president, I am not for McSame or Obama but I know one thing for sure... Who ever is the next president has his work cut out and what this country needs is a visionary leader, not some one with the same of what has got this country into this mess.
hairstyles Might as well get the wingtips
Macaca
12-27 07:32 PM
But they got no answers out of me�a total failure. Officer Xu, while asking me questions, kept kicking my legs. I said, "Be a little more civilized!"
Then he said, "So what if I act like this, what can you do! In other matters I will actually still be afraid that someone might complain. But you here, you are an enemy. We can beat you and swear at you and if you complain, it will be useless even if you complain to the Ministry of Public Security!" I thought, this little police officer is younger than 30, how is he so well versed in the Maoist doctrine of the "contradiction between the enemy and us"?
A tall plainclothes officer was getting impatient and said loudly to Officer Xu: "Why waste words on this sort of person? Let's beat him to death and dig a hole to bury him in and be done with it. How lucky we've got a place to put him away here." Turning to me, he said, "Think your family can find you if you're disappeared? Tell me, what difference would it make if you vanished from Beijing?" Later he whispered to Officer Xu, "Put him away in the hotel!" I could not hear clear what hotel he meant, but from the context I assumed he was referring to that "place to bury you."
I knew they were not just joking, and I felt like a small ant that could be annihilated any moment without a trace. And yet I was not that scared. For one thing, I had already sent out a message on the Internet, and for another, they had by that time also taken my ID card out of my bag and realized that I was a teacher at the China University of Politics and Law.
This special status was the reason why I was not beaten more severely, and why they did not "dig a hole to bury me." And it is true: I had disclosed this information to the police officers, albeit half-consciously, to avoid being beaten more severely. If it had not been for my status as a teacher at CUPL, a doctor with a degree from Peking University, a famous human rights lawyer, a visiting scholar at Yale, could I still have shown as much courage? I very much doubt it.
I felt ashamed of my status and the differential treatment I was enjoying on account of them. I even felt that if the police didn't succeed in burying me they would vent their rage against some other disobedient person. Any pain that I was being spared was sure to be inflicted on another, more helpless victim at some point.
How much terror, humiliation and despair do ordinary people suffer who get locked up in police stations, re-education through labour camps, investigation detention cells, custody and repatriation cells, and black jails in the face of a bunch of police officers who regard a person's life like a blade of grass and treat ordinary people as foes? Police officers across the country threatening to "beat you to death and dig a hole to bury you," how many people do they actually beat to death or beat until they are disabled?
It was almost midnight when the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau sent round some officers who said they wanted to take me away. They returned my glasses, mobile phone and other things. I told them that I would only leave together with the friend who had been detained with me.
After some more argument, they led me and Mr. Zhang to a car. Someone called my name, and I immediately recognized some netizens. I could not get out of the car but I shook hands with them through the window. Later I learned that many others had also rushed to the scene. An unknown number of netizen friends had expressed support on the Internet and passed on the news. Maybe that is the main reason why we were so quickly released.
On the way back home, a Beijing state security officer complained to me, "If everybody fought with them using your methods, the police would have no way of continuing their work! How many fewer common thieves they'd be able to catch!"
I replied, "If the law-enforcers don't act in accordance with the law, what use are they really to citizens? Police should catch thieves, but can those who 'beat you to death and dig a hole for you' still be called 'police'? If people are fighting each other using my methods, maybe fewer common thieves will be caught, but fewer citizens will be beaten to death in police stations. In which of these two situations are society's losses greater?"
Mr. Teng is a professor of law at China University of Politics and Law
The Challenges China Faces (http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2892&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China�s Attitude toward Hard Power and Soft Power (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/12_china_soft_power_jia.aspx) By Qingguo Jia | Peking University
Computing set to bolster China's industrial prowess (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20101227a1.html) Sentaku Magazine
Then he said, "So what if I act like this, what can you do! In other matters I will actually still be afraid that someone might complain. But you here, you are an enemy. We can beat you and swear at you and if you complain, it will be useless even if you complain to the Ministry of Public Security!" I thought, this little police officer is younger than 30, how is he so well versed in the Maoist doctrine of the "contradiction between the enemy and us"?
A tall plainclothes officer was getting impatient and said loudly to Officer Xu: "Why waste words on this sort of person? Let's beat him to death and dig a hole to bury him in and be done with it. How lucky we've got a place to put him away here." Turning to me, he said, "Think your family can find you if you're disappeared? Tell me, what difference would it make if you vanished from Beijing?" Later he whispered to Officer Xu, "Put him away in the hotel!" I could not hear clear what hotel he meant, but from the context I assumed he was referring to that "place to bury you."
I knew they were not just joking, and I felt like a small ant that could be annihilated any moment without a trace. And yet I was not that scared. For one thing, I had already sent out a message on the Internet, and for another, they had by that time also taken my ID card out of my bag and realized that I was a teacher at the China University of Politics and Law.
This special status was the reason why I was not beaten more severely, and why they did not "dig a hole to bury me." And it is true: I had disclosed this information to the police officers, albeit half-consciously, to avoid being beaten more severely. If it had not been for my status as a teacher at CUPL, a doctor with a degree from Peking University, a famous human rights lawyer, a visiting scholar at Yale, could I still have shown as much courage? I very much doubt it.
I felt ashamed of my status and the differential treatment I was enjoying on account of them. I even felt that if the police didn't succeed in burying me they would vent their rage against some other disobedient person. Any pain that I was being spared was sure to be inflicted on another, more helpless victim at some point.
How much terror, humiliation and despair do ordinary people suffer who get locked up in police stations, re-education through labour camps, investigation detention cells, custody and repatriation cells, and black jails in the face of a bunch of police officers who regard a person's life like a blade of grass and treat ordinary people as foes? Police officers across the country threatening to "beat you to death and dig a hole to bury you," how many people do they actually beat to death or beat until they are disabled?
It was almost midnight when the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau sent round some officers who said they wanted to take me away. They returned my glasses, mobile phone and other things. I told them that I would only leave together with the friend who had been detained with me.
After some more argument, they led me and Mr. Zhang to a car. Someone called my name, and I immediately recognized some netizens. I could not get out of the car but I shook hands with them through the window. Later I learned that many others had also rushed to the scene. An unknown number of netizen friends had expressed support on the Internet and passed on the news. Maybe that is the main reason why we were so quickly released.
On the way back home, a Beijing state security officer complained to me, "If everybody fought with them using your methods, the police would have no way of continuing their work! How many fewer common thieves they'd be able to catch!"
I replied, "If the law-enforcers don't act in accordance with the law, what use are they really to citizens? Police should catch thieves, but can those who 'beat you to death and dig a hole for you' still be called 'police'? If people are fighting each other using my methods, maybe fewer common thieves will be caught, but fewer citizens will be beaten to death in police stations. In which of these two situations are society's losses greater?"
Mr. Teng is a professor of law at China University of Politics and Law
The Challenges China Faces (http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2892&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China�s Attitude toward Hard Power and Soft Power (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/12_china_soft_power_jia.aspx) By Qingguo Jia | Peking University
Computing set to bolster China's industrial prowess (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20101227a1.html) Sentaku Magazine
nogc_noproblem
08-06 05:57 PM
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
HERE COMES THE BEST JOKE OF THIS THREAD
I got a RED dot for this post.
Comment - "Racist Joke".
Five Englishmen in an Audi Quattro arrived at an Irish border.
Checkpoint Paddy the officer stops them and tells them: "It is illegal to put 5 people in a Quattro, Quattro means four".
"Quattro is just the name of the automobile," the Englishmen retorts with disbelief "Look at the papers: This car is designed to carry five persons".
"You can not pull that one on me," replies Paddy "Quattro means four You have five people in your car and you are therefore breaking the law"
The Englishmen replies angrily, "You idiot! Call your supervisor over I want to speak to someone with more intelligence!".
"Sorry," responds Paddy, "Murphy is busy with 2 guys in a Fiat Uno"
HERE COMES THE BEST JOKE OF THIS THREAD
I got a RED dot for this post.
Comment - "Racist Joke".
Five Englishmen in an Audi Quattro arrived at an Irish border.
Checkpoint Paddy the officer stops them and tells them: "It is illegal to put 5 people in a Quattro, Quattro means four".
"Quattro is just the name of the automobile," the Englishmen retorts with disbelief "Look at the papers: This car is designed to carry five persons".
"You can not pull that one on me," replies Paddy "Quattro means four You have five people in your car and you are therefore breaking the law"
The Englishmen replies angrily, "You idiot! Call your supervisor over I want to speak to someone with more intelligence!".
"Sorry," responds Paddy, "Murphy is busy with 2 guys in a Fiat Uno"
kaisersose
04-15 10:31 AM
When I was a kid I lived in a very small house (flat) with my parents. Now I look back & realize that was the happiest time of my life. We didnt have much money. My parents gave me lot of time & love. For a kid what matters the most is the love he recives from his parents.
Agreed, but then you have no way of knowing if you would have been less happier growing up in a bigger home. For all you know, you may have been more happier.
I think personally we shouldn't make a statement "Our kids will have better lives in a house".
That is the general line of thinking everyone has including all the people who are posting on this forum. If more money does not equate to a better life, then why are all these people taking the trouble to desert their home land and live in a foreign country? If more money => better lifestyle, then it follows a home can provide a relatively better environment to a child than an apartment.
If all Americans live in rented apartments, drive only used Japanese cars (resale value), furnished their homes with scant used furniture and were focussed on investing their money than spending it, then the American economy will go down to the level of a third world country in less than 10 years.
This does not mean everyone has to run out and buy a home. The point as I said earlier is to see a home as a home and not as an investment.
Agreed, but then you have no way of knowing if you would have been less happier growing up in a bigger home. For all you know, you may have been more happier.
I think personally we shouldn't make a statement "Our kids will have better lives in a house".
That is the general line of thinking everyone has including all the people who are posting on this forum. If more money does not equate to a better life, then why are all these people taking the trouble to desert their home land and live in a foreign country? If more money => better lifestyle, then it follows a home can provide a relatively better environment to a child than an apartment.
If all Americans live in rented apartments, drive only used Japanese cars (resale value), furnished their homes with scant used furniture and were focussed on investing their money than spending it, then the American economy will go down to the level of a third world country in less than 10 years.
This does not mean everyone has to run out and buy a home. The point as I said earlier is to see a home as a home and not as an investment.
No comments:
Post a Comment