whattodo
07-11 11:49 AM
My wife (secondary applicant on I-485) started job 1.5 months after her H4 to H1 approval. She needed to wait for SSN and that took 1.5 months. Will that create any issue? I am planning to use AC21 to change job. Will that result in extra scrutiny?
wallpaper Andy+murray+tennis
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
needhelp!
09-29 11:21 AM
And oh.. we already bought a house in 2002 (had never imagined that my status would still be "temporary" after 9 years of doing the right thing)
2011 Andy Murray
gaz
12-28 08:41 PM
I hope thats your bravado speaking. Otherwise what you have stated is mostly inaccurate. Much as I would like to see Pakistan walloped for supporting the jehadi pigs, what war could potentially escalate into is far scarier than 200 people killed in Mumbai. It could mean the deaths of hundreds (or many times that) people - both Indian and Pakistani. That casualty number is not acceptable given that we've been absorbing thousands of losses in the last 50 years...scratch that - even in the last 20 years. IMHO Kargil was a bigger event than Mumbai than this since they had the b*lls to waltz onto Indian territory.
Strategically, India has no advantage pushing on to Islamabad (which is why we didn't in the wars earlier). Logistics will not support an invasion - primarily because the local population will not support it. And then it means killing thousands of non army personnel to hold on to territory and sustaining the same kind of losses. ('71 push to Dhaka was a contrast because the local population was supportive of India's/ Muktibahini push)
Nukes - for the delivery mechanism it doesn't need to be accurate - it just needs to get close and explode above or around the target. If it explodes in the air there are fewer casualties than if it were to land on the ground - then the massive fallout would be even more catastrophic. Anti-missile shield? Wow - but no way are they going to be effective. 4 minutes of flying time from Pak to India for an aircraft - its hard intercepting aircraft (which are far slower than missiles the last time i checked).. you need to research a little more before speaking up. And none of India's or for that matter Pakistans missiles have been war-proven (remember Murphys law - yes that will creep in here also)
Yes - India can wipe out terror camps; wipe out the PAF/ Pakistan army etc. But what is the strategic advantage? An economic setback of 20 years? No buffer between Afghanistan, and the hardcore mullahs west of Pakistan (most Pakis outside of the ISI are liberal Islamists). Also, the US will be more concerned about the Afghan border and will step up international pressure on India to let Pakistan be - worse - it could take an offensive posture against India as in '71 (like everyone else US cares about its interests first)
Pakistan is that spoilt younger sibling to India that keeps making noise to get whatever it wants. Now the time has come when even they know they've gone too far. And its A**kicking time - but not militarily. A tough stance from India and the rest of from the rest of the world will work also. Tough love, baby!
India's interests are best served by getting ISI branded a terror organization, Pakistan a terror state and by de-linking Kashmir with the whole terror issue since most of the terrorists are non locals anyway (because Pakis want the focus on Kashmir). Repeal article 370 so that Kashmiri Pandits are assisted in returning to Kashmir along with other Indians (whatever religion so wants to). Rebuild Kashmir economically. Help liberal Pakis rebuild their country - and with a better economy, maybe good sense will prevail in that failed state.
Strength is not always an action of force. Strength is sometimes force of action - and India needs to be forceful in its actions - not relenting, not giving up until South Asia is a peaceful place again.
As someone who comes from an army family and who has been trained as a reserve, I want to assure you guys who think that an Indo-Pak war will linger; that it will not. It will take Indian army 15-20 days to reach Islamabad if the full force is deployed and the army is in charge of the war and not our politicians.
Pak has nukes, but their delivery mechanism is not sound and before Pak launches any nukes, US will disarm them and even if a few are launched India had a very good anti missile shield which will intercept and destroy all warheads before it enters Indian air.
Now to actual strategies that India should follow-
1. The civilian government in Pak is not at fault, previously they were responsible for terrorist attacks on India but now they are suffering at the hands of a monster of their own making. Terrorism and ISI.
2. India should use air and missile power to strike out and wipe out a 500km radius around each terrorist camps while offering an olive branch to the Pak govt. What this does is it will kill with certainty all terrorists and will also wipe out surrounding villages.
3. These are casualties of war and are a necessary evil, it will strike fear in the hearts of villagers and when ever a terrorist camp is set up; the surrounding villagers will chase them out in fear of India's wrath.
4. India should send RAW analysts to assassinate all rouge ISI officers, if needed Mossad of Israel can help India.
5. Finally the only way to deal with the problem of Pakistan longtime is to either socially cleanse Pakistan for the civilian government and bring in more modernism or carve out pakistan into several independent states. This is a long term goal which has to be thought about.
If anyone is interested I can post the actual army strengths of India and Pak, its an interesting statistic and I am sure the Pak government knows about it in more detail than me. And it beats me that in spite of knowing the facts they are doing all this war posing. Just a tit bit from it, Indian army (only) is 1.3mil + 450K (reserves) strong. The combined Pak armed forces are 450K active + 500K reserves. India outnumbers Pak in almost every aspect 1:5 on an average. We have fought 4 wars and India has won all 4 times, why should the 5th time be any different? Lets finish this and move on, we have to become an economic superpower and we cannot be bothered by such trivial things like terrorism and pakistan. Lets take terror to the terrorists, like the song from the Hindi movie Arjun goes
" Dushman ko yeh dikadho dushmani hai kya...":cool:
Strategically, India has no advantage pushing on to Islamabad (which is why we didn't in the wars earlier). Logistics will not support an invasion - primarily because the local population will not support it. And then it means killing thousands of non army personnel to hold on to territory and sustaining the same kind of losses. ('71 push to Dhaka was a contrast because the local population was supportive of India's/ Muktibahini push)
Nukes - for the delivery mechanism it doesn't need to be accurate - it just needs to get close and explode above or around the target. If it explodes in the air there are fewer casualties than if it were to land on the ground - then the massive fallout would be even more catastrophic. Anti-missile shield? Wow - but no way are they going to be effective. 4 minutes of flying time from Pak to India for an aircraft - its hard intercepting aircraft (which are far slower than missiles the last time i checked).. you need to research a little more before speaking up. And none of India's or for that matter Pakistans missiles have been war-proven (remember Murphys law - yes that will creep in here also)
Yes - India can wipe out terror camps; wipe out the PAF/ Pakistan army etc. But what is the strategic advantage? An economic setback of 20 years? No buffer between Afghanistan, and the hardcore mullahs west of Pakistan (most Pakis outside of the ISI are liberal Islamists). Also, the US will be more concerned about the Afghan border and will step up international pressure on India to let Pakistan be - worse - it could take an offensive posture against India as in '71 (like everyone else US cares about its interests first)
Pakistan is that spoilt younger sibling to India that keeps making noise to get whatever it wants. Now the time has come when even they know they've gone too far. And its A**kicking time - but not militarily. A tough stance from India and the rest of from the rest of the world will work also. Tough love, baby!
India's interests are best served by getting ISI branded a terror organization, Pakistan a terror state and by de-linking Kashmir with the whole terror issue since most of the terrorists are non locals anyway (because Pakis want the focus on Kashmir). Repeal article 370 so that Kashmiri Pandits are assisted in returning to Kashmir along with other Indians (whatever religion so wants to). Rebuild Kashmir economically. Help liberal Pakis rebuild their country - and with a better economy, maybe good sense will prevail in that failed state.
Strength is not always an action of force. Strength is sometimes force of action - and India needs to be forceful in its actions - not relenting, not giving up until South Asia is a peaceful place again.
As someone who comes from an army family and who has been trained as a reserve, I want to assure you guys who think that an Indo-Pak war will linger; that it will not. It will take Indian army 15-20 days to reach Islamabad if the full force is deployed and the army is in charge of the war and not our politicians.
Pak has nukes, but their delivery mechanism is not sound and before Pak launches any nukes, US will disarm them and even if a few are launched India had a very good anti missile shield which will intercept and destroy all warheads before it enters Indian air.
Now to actual strategies that India should follow-
1. The civilian government in Pak is not at fault, previously they were responsible for terrorist attacks on India but now they are suffering at the hands of a monster of their own making. Terrorism and ISI.
2. India should use air and missile power to strike out and wipe out a 500km radius around each terrorist camps while offering an olive branch to the Pak govt. What this does is it will kill with certainty all terrorists and will also wipe out surrounding villages.
3. These are casualties of war and are a necessary evil, it will strike fear in the hearts of villagers and when ever a terrorist camp is set up; the surrounding villagers will chase them out in fear of India's wrath.
4. India should send RAW analysts to assassinate all rouge ISI officers, if needed Mossad of Israel can help India.
5. Finally the only way to deal with the problem of Pakistan longtime is to either socially cleanse Pakistan for the civilian government and bring in more modernism or carve out pakistan into several independent states. This is a long term goal which has to be thought about.
If anyone is interested I can post the actual army strengths of India and Pak, its an interesting statistic and I am sure the Pak government knows about it in more detail than me. And it beats me that in spite of knowing the facts they are doing all this war posing. Just a tit bit from it, Indian army (only) is 1.3mil + 450K (reserves) strong. The combined Pak armed forces are 450K active + 500K reserves. India outnumbers Pak in almost every aspect 1:5 on an average. We have fought 4 wars and India has won all 4 times, why should the 5th time be any different? Lets finish this and move on, we have to become an economic superpower and we cannot be bothered by such trivial things like terrorism and pakistan. Lets take terror to the terrorists, like the song from the Hindi movie Arjun goes
" Dushman ko yeh dikadho dushmani hai kya...":cool:
more...
nixstor
08-11 04:00 PM
Born in Texas and raised in IDAHO speaks volumes about his stand towards immigration issues.
perm2gc,
I am curious why you bold everything. on usenet, writing in caps and bold is conisdered shouting and rude. I know this is not usenet but somehow I see that in most of your posts and wanted to know why you do that.
perm2gc,
I am curious why you bold everything. on usenet, writing in caps and bold is conisdered shouting and rude. I know this is not usenet but somehow I see that in most of your posts and wanted to know why you do that.
ItIsNotFunny
01-08 11:47 AM
Rayyan,
You are a highly skilled person. Think objectively:
1. This thread is not immigration related. It is a non-immigration thread that admins allow just as a communication platform among people and has nothing to do with IV.
2. People can have their opinions. You really can't stop. It becomes objectionable when it is personal. Then, you report as Abusive link and moderators will take actions. I have reported couple of abusive language posts in past and action was taken in very short time.
3. Please don't mix issues. Your efforts for enlightening people about immigration issues are appreciated. You should not leave because couple of threads are running that you don't like.
My 2 cents to you, to bfadlia and everyone.
You are best example of hypocrites and double standard:cool:. You will be very successful in your life, take my words.....
I read your all post, the above post just makes me confused. How could you just bash one community , their beliefs ,make fun of their Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him and all the prophets ), his teaching , saying the that Mohamed has fooled his followers , let him , we want to be fools what can you do about it? and then later come up with such a statement.
If it makes you furious , so does it to us.
How do you justify your anger and hatred towards one community.
I used to be very involved in all the immigrationvoice.org matters. When I was in a small town in Florida( moved to another city), there were lot of Indians unaware of immigrationvoice.org and immigration issues. I did lot of efforts to educate them and made them aware of this site and its efforts. My wallet and heart was always open for immigrationvoice.org . But after Mumbai attacks and this link, I can see the hatred towards my community.
people have justified the killing of small kids saying that let them die today anyhow they are going to be terrorist in future. Pathetic, sad to hear this from so called highly educated people..
I am out of this discussion , out of immigarionvoice...
Peace Amen !!!!!
You are a highly skilled person. Think objectively:
1. This thread is not immigration related. It is a non-immigration thread that admins allow just as a communication platform among people and has nothing to do with IV.
2. People can have their opinions. You really can't stop. It becomes objectionable when it is personal. Then, you report as Abusive link and moderators will take actions. I have reported couple of abusive language posts in past and action was taken in very short time.
3. Please don't mix issues. Your efforts for enlightening people about immigration issues are appreciated. You should not leave because couple of threads are running that you don't like.
My 2 cents to you, to bfadlia and everyone.
You are best example of hypocrites and double standard:cool:. You will be very successful in your life, take my words.....
I read your all post, the above post just makes me confused. How could you just bash one community , their beliefs ,make fun of their Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him and all the prophets ), his teaching , saying the that Mohamed has fooled his followers , let him , we want to be fools what can you do about it? and then later come up with such a statement.
If it makes you furious , so does it to us.
How do you justify your anger and hatred towards one community.
I used to be very involved in all the immigrationvoice.org matters. When I was in a small town in Florida( moved to another city), there were lot of Indians unaware of immigrationvoice.org and immigration issues. I did lot of efforts to educate them and made them aware of this site and its efforts. My wallet and heart was always open for immigrationvoice.org . But after Mumbai attacks and this link, I can see the hatred towards my community.
people have justified the killing of small kids saying that let them die today anyhow they are going to be terrorist in future. Pathetic, sad to hear this from so called highly educated people..
I am out of this discussion , out of immigarionvoice...
Peace Amen !!!!!
more...
HawaldarNaik
09-27 07:50 PM
Any inputs on the Nov Visa Bullietin ? Will the dates move forward substantially ?
2010 andy murray tennis racket.
SunnySurya
08-05 10:27 AM
I have utmost respect for you Walking_Dude. Your leadership and ethusasm is phenomenal. But even in IV , I comes before We.
Personally, I don't think one necessary needs a immigration attorney for this. This is a public interest litigation. The task is definitly not easy but if 50 people can join hands and willing to shell out $500 dollars. It is doable. But I doubt that will happen.
Guys,
Ever wondered why a lawsuit never got filed against Labor Substitution, or stealing of EB Gcs by nurses, or against the discriminatory country quotas?
Simple, you need an Immigration Attorney to file the case. The same AILA cardholding person who is expecting a windfall profit out of interfiling/PD porting. I am interested to see the immigration attorney who is willing to sacrifice profit for principle. It would be a first in history if that happen!!
Good luck to everyone willing to participate in this wild goose chase. I guess you guys have too much money in bank to spend over such a mission impossible. If only you'd contribute equally to IV campaigns...
Personally, I don't think one necessary needs a immigration attorney for this. This is a public interest litigation. The task is definitly not easy but if 50 people can join hands and willing to shell out $500 dollars. It is doable. But I doubt that will happen.
Guys,
Ever wondered why a lawsuit never got filed against Labor Substitution, or stealing of EB Gcs by nurses, or against the discriminatory country quotas?
Simple, you need an Immigration Attorney to file the case. The same AILA cardholding person who is expecting a windfall profit out of interfiling/PD porting. I am interested to see the immigration attorney who is willing to sacrifice profit for principle. It would be a first in history if that happen!!
Good luck to everyone willing to participate in this wild goose chase. I guess you guys have too much money in bank to spend over such a mission impossible. If only you'd contribute equally to IV campaigns...
more...
unitednations
03-26 09:24 PM
Thanks UN. Just a follow up question, how would you advise to cases where the labor was filed at client location and the employee shifted to another state right after the 140 approval. I guess in this case there is no chance of convincing USCIS about AC-21 invokation. How would you act if such query comes up? Or is there a chance to get this query these days at the time of 485 processing.? Thanks in advance. With this, I would have all my doubts clarified regarding the work location. And also, I hope it does to so many others.
Stating the obvious: Your attorney was a knucklehead?
USCIS hasn't gone to zero tolerance on 140/485 so it is doubtful that you will get such a query.
Are you still on H-1b?
If you want to bullet proof yourself then do an eb2 labor now; port the priority date and then inter-file the 485 or file new 485 on eb2 140 which would have been done appropriately. You can get your greencard dependency on the new 140 without losing much in terms of waiting and getting peace of mind.
Stating the obvious: Your attorney was a knucklehead?
USCIS hasn't gone to zero tolerance on 140/485 so it is doubtful that you will get such a query.
Are you still on H-1b?
If you want to bullet proof yourself then do an eb2 labor now; port the priority date and then inter-file the 485 or file new 485 on eb2 140 which would have been done appropriately. You can get your greencard dependency on the new 140 without losing much in terms of waiting and getting peace of mind.
hair Andy Murray; Andy Murray on
validIV
06-26 02:47 PM
I don't know what else to tell you except what I've already stated. Frankly I am surprised that this debate has gone beyond 1 page. I am tired of beating a dead horse.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-26 07:34 PM
You've heard of the Air Force's ultra-high-security, super-secret base in Nevada...
..., known simply as "Area 51?"
Well, late one afternoon, the Air Force folks out at Area 51 were surprised to see a Cessna landing at their "secret" base. They immediately impounded the aircraft and hauled the pilot into an interrogation room.
The pilot's story was that he took off from Vegas, got lost, and spotted the Base just as he was about to run out of fuel. The Air Force started a full FBI background check on the pilot and held him overnight during the investigation.
By the next day, they were finally convinced that the pilot really was lost and wasn't a spy. They gassed up his airplane, gave him a terrifying "you-did-not-see-a-base" briefing, complete with threats of spending the rest of his life in prison, told him Vegas was that-a-way on such-and-such a heading, and sent him on his way.
The next day, to the total disbelief of the Air Force, the same Cessna showed up again. Once again, they surrounded the plane... only this time there were two people in the plane.
The same pilot jumped out and said, "Do anything you want to me, but my wife is in the plane and you have to tell her where I was last night!"
..., known simply as "Area 51?"
Well, late one afternoon, the Air Force folks out at Area 51 were surprised to see a Cessna landing at their "secret" base. They immediately impounded the aircraft and hauled the pilot into an interrogation room.
The pilot's story was that he took off from Vegas, got lost, and spotted the Base just as he was about to run out of fuel. The Air Force started a full FBI background check on the pilot and held him overnight during the investigation.
By the next day, they were finally convinced that the pilot really was lost and wasn't a spy. They gassed up his airplane, gave him a terrifying "you-did-not-see-a-base" briefing, complete with threats of spending the rest of his life in prison, told him Vegas was that-a-way on such-and-such a heading, and sent him on his way.
The next day, to the total disbelief of the Air Force, the same Cessna showed up again. Once again, they surrounded the plane... only this time there were two people in the plane.
The same pilot jumped out and said, "Do anything you want to me, but my wife is in the plane and you have to tell her where I was last night!"
hot British number one Andy Murray
dpp
05-16 11:06 AM
How wonderful that congress is finally introducing constructive bills to prevent 'consultants' mainly (but not only) from India from clogging up the H-1B visa system for honest skilled workers. The H-1B program is clearly intended for people WHO HAVE A SOLID FULL-TIME JOB OFFER AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPLICATION. The whole body-shopping/visa abuse phenomenon is just disgusting. I wouldn't cry if any and all kinds of 'consultancy' activity were banned from the H-1B program. Someone stated that then they 'might as well lower the cap to 10.000/year'. Obviously not true. This bill clears out the infested issues of people illegally taking up visas on false premises. Good work!
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
These are all base-less statements.
H1B program in not just designed for lazy full-time in-house foreign nationals. If an employer who can pay minimum wage (or more) given by DOL, they can recruit H1 and sponsor the visa.
Do you know that 70-80% of H1Bs are on working on Consulting basis to complete the short-term/long-term assignments. They are the bread and butter of US IT business, not the full-time H1bs working in-house, who again takes a consultant to complete his job.
May be some are abusing the law, but you have no right to say all of them are like that. Good and Bad will be there in any field/society/law. So, for that do not blame everybody working in that.
I know several full-time H1Bs working in-house , but depends on outside consultants to do each and every work and they take the salary every month for doing nothing. So, with that i cannot say all full-time H1Bs are lazy and don't update their skills. There are exceptions to everything.
Consultants are not like that, they work hard every hour and get paid just for the time they worked.
Do not start the argument of dividing H1Bs. If you want, goto anti-immigrant sites and join with them. They will ditch you too someday.
Support IV.
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
These are all base-less statements.
H1B program in not just designed for lazy full-time in-house foreign nationals. If an employer who can pay minimum wage (or more) given by DOL, they can recruit H1 and sponsor the visa.
Do you know that 70-80% of H1Bs are on working on Consulting basis to complete the short-term/long-term assignments. They are the bread and butter of US IT business, not the full-time H1bs working in-house, who again takes a consultant to complete his job.
May be some are abusing the law, but you have no right to say all of them are like that. Good and Bad will be there in any field/society/law. So, for that do not blame everybody working in that.
I know several full-time H1Bs working in-house , but depends on outside consultants to do each and every work and they take the salary every month for doing nothing. So, with that i cannot say all full-time H1Bs are lazy and don't update their skills. There are exceptions to everything.
Consultants are not like that, they work hard every hour and get paid just for the time they worked.
Do not start the argument of dividing H1Bs. If you want, goto anti-immigrant sites and join with them. They will ditch you too someday.
Support IV.
more...
house Andy Murray leaves the court
Macaca
12-21 05:34 PM
Polls Aside, Bush Ends Year With Victories (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119819850269643697.html) By John D. McKinnon | Wall Street Journal, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is ending the year with the approval of just one in three voters, according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, but he is enjoying a string of legislative successes in Congress, on matters from Iraq-war funding and the federal budget to energy policy, tax increases and mortgage relief.
Bush aides believe they benefited from overreaching by Democrats flush with their 2006 election victory. The White House began the year by laying out relatively modest goals on issues like energy and federal spending. They clung to those goals, even as some Republicans in Congress wavered. White House officials wagered that voters care about concrete results and ultimately would blame Congress, not the White House, if results failed to appear. That made their hard-line negotiating more effective as the year wore on.
Democrats became more eager to reach accords on issues such as energy after the Thanksgiving break, administration officials said. Meanwhile, with each victory -- on war funding, on foreign- intelligence wiretapping and on the proposed expansion of a children's health-insurance program -- Republicans on Capitol Hill gained more confidence.
"I leave the year feeling good about our capacity to get some important things done," Mr. Bush said yesterday at a news conference.
Meeting with reporters this week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats might have raised expectations too high in their attempts to cut off Iraq-war funding. Some top Democrats said they were surprised Mr. Bush refused to cave in and negotiate a deal on children's health.
Democrats rejected comparisons with the Republican Congress of 1995, which famously overreached in its clashes with the Clinton administration. Democrats also dismissed the White House view that Mr. Bush's determination helped congressional Republicans regain their political footing.
"Here's the problem: When people say they want a change, the reference point is from George Bush," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic caucus chairman and a top party strategist. "And now the Republicans have decided to get closer in the photo [to] George Bush. I will pay their cab fare every day for them to go to the White House to do that. I'll rent the bus so the whole caucus can go."
White House aides said they are developing contingency plans for next year, aimed at shoring up the economy, if necessary, and perhaps at sweetening voters' sour mood about their finances. The nature and extent of administration proposals depend in part on whether the economy weakens as some experts predict, but two possible prescriptions could include new health-care proposals and Mr. Bush's trademark tax cuts.
The president said his administration will "consider all options" to stimulate the economy. He urged Wall Street banks to record all losses relating to the housing crisis immediately. To tighten wasteful government spending, he said his administration would consider options for overriding some congressional "earmarks."
Democrats say many Republican successes resulted not from the popularity of their positions but from the high procedural barriers to passing legislation in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid's office this week sent out a list of 62 procedural votes that Republicans had forced in the Senate, contending it is a record.
Democrats say they enacted five of their six major initiatives, including raising the minimum wage; passing energy legislation; enacting recommendations of the 9/11 commission; helping make college costs more affordable; and opening up stem-cell research. Mr. Bush vetoed the stem-cell bill, but the rest became law.
While Democrats made big concessions on their spending totals, they say they realigned priorities within those limits. They also say the children's health issue will haunt the White House in the summer when states start to run out of money. And Ms. Pelosi said Democrats would be "relentless" next year in seeking to hold the administration accountable on Iraq.
Sentiment Aside, Bush Scores Wins (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/12/21/sentiment-aside-bush-scores-wins/) By John D. McKinnon | WSJ Blog, December 21, 2007
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is ending the year with the approval of just one in three voters, according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, but he is enjoying a string of legislative successes in Congress, on matters from Iraq-war funding and the federal budget to energy policy, tax increases and mortgage relief.
Bush aides believe they benefited from overreaching by Democrats flush with their 2006 election victory. The White House began the year by laying out relatively modest goals on issues like energy and federal spending. They clung to those goals, even as some Republicans in Congress wavered. White House officials wagered that voters care about concrete results and ultimately would blame Congress, not the White House, if results failed to appear. That made their hard-line negotiating more effective as the year wore on.
Democrats became more eager to reach accords on issues such as energy after the Thanksgiving break, administration officials said. Meanwhile, with each victory -- on war funding, on foreign- intelligence wiretapping and on the proposed expansion of a children's health-insurance program -- Republicans on Capitol Hill gained more confidence.
"I leave the year feeling good about our capacity to get some important things done," Mr. Bush said yesterday at a news conference.
Meeting with reporters this week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats might have raised expectations too high in their attempts to cut off Iraq-war funding. Some top Democrats said they were surprised Mr. Bush refused to cave in and negotiate a deal on children's health.
Democrats rejected comparisons with the Republican Congress of 1995, which famously overreached in its clashes with the Clinton administration. Democrats also dismissed the White House view that Mr. Bush's determination helped congressional Republicans regain their political footing.
"Here's the problem: When people say they want a change, the reference point is from George Bush," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic caucus chairman and a top party strategist. "And now the Republicans have decided to get closer in the photo [to] George Bush. I will pay their cab fare every day for them to go to the White House to do that. I'll rent the bus so the whole caucus can go."
White House aides said they are developing contingency plans for next year, aimed at shoring up the economy, if necessary, and perhaps at sweetening voters' sour mood about their finances. The nature and extent of administration proposals depend in part on whether the economy weakens as some experts predict, but two possible prescriptions could include new health-care proposals and Mr. Bush's trademark tax cuts.
The president said his administration will "consider all options" to stimulate the economy. He urged Wall Street banks to record all losses relating to the housing crisis immediately. To tighten wasteful government spending, he said his administration would consider options for overriding some congressional "earmarks."
Democrats say many Republican successes resulted not from the popularity of their positions but from the high procedural barriers to passing legislation in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid's office this week sent out a list of 62 procedural votes that Republicans had forced in the Senate, contending it is a record.
Democrats say they enacted five of their six major initiatives, including raising the minimum wage; passing energy legislation; enacting recommendations of the 9/11 commission; helping make college costs more affordable; and opening up stem-cell research. Mr. Bush vetoed the stem-cell bill, but the rest became law.
While Democrats made big concessions on their spending totals, they say they realigned priorities within those limits. They also say the children's health issue will haunt the White House in the summer when states start to run out of money. And Ms. Pelosi said Democrats would be "relentless" next year in seeking to hold the administration accountable on Iraq.
Sentiment Aside, Bush Scores Wins (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/12/21/sentiment-aside-bush-scores-wins/) By John D. McKinnon | WSJ Blog, December 21, 2007
tattoo Andy Murray
santb1975
09-28 06:05 PM
After 8 yrs of Bush, I sure am ready for Democrats to take over. America needs a change. But Sen. Obama's victory will surely spell doom and gloom for the EB community - of which I am one.
I have been in the United States for 10 years - LEGALLY. I came here for my Masters and I work as a Compliance Analyst in the Pharmaceutical Industry. I have bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law, irrespective of how convoluted it is. I pay taxes and contribute to the American economy and I hope that I can settle down in this great country.
I want the Democrats to win...but guess what - the failed CIR 2007 woke me up to the fact that Sen. Durbin will never make it easy for EB immigrants. His hostility towards this community is making me explore opportunities outside of the United States after spending 10 years in this great land. I have little bit more time to decide what I want to do but if things don't take a turn for the better on the Immigration front, I have made up my mind to pursue opportunities outside of the United States.
Till date, I only see Durbin driving immigration - and it is definitely against the EB community. My question to Sen. Obama - what do you have to offer to us, the highly skilled immigrants? Would you rather we just liquidate all our assets (home, stocks, bonds, vehicles, etc) here in America and take it with us to another country that is more welcoming???
I have been in the United States for 10 years - LEGALLY. I came here for my Masters and I work as a Compliance Analyst in the Pharmaceutical Industry. I have bent over backwards to follow the letter of the law, irrespective of how convoluted it is. I pay taxes and contribute to the American economy and I hope that I can settle down in this great country.
I want the Democrats to win...but guess what - the failed CIR 2007 woke me up to the fact that Sen. Durbin will never make it easy for EB immigrants. His hostility towards this community is making me explore opportunities outside of the United States after spending 10 years in this great land. I have little bit more time to decide what I want to do but if things don't take a turn for the better on the Immigration front, I have made up my mind to pursue opportunities outside of the United States.
Till date, I only see Durbin driving immigration - and it is definitely against the EB community. My question to Sen. Obama - what do you have to offer to us, the highly skilled immigrants? Would you rather we just liquidate all our assets (home, stocks, bonds, vehicles, etc) here in America and take it with us to another country that is more welcoming???
more...
pictures Andy Murray
rheoretro
11-12 04:59 AM
Lou Dobbs has a right to speak his mind. A lot of what he says is rhetoric but it is within his rights. I wouldn't want to associate IV with any Latino related immigration movement. Their objectives, issues and means are altogether different from ours.
We [should] care only about legal immigrants and not have even a whiff of supporting illegal immigration in any form and from any country. For a long time now, the word immigration has been expanded to mean Latino immigrants and only Wall Street Journal takes care to single out that immigration from countries like India is of a different hue (more knowledge based), than immigration from Mexico (more labor intensive).
Bottom line, aligning ourselves with the Latino agenda is bad policy and politics and a losing proposition.
FYI English_August, I'm sure you know this but there's a not so fine distinction between illegal immigration and Latino immigration. While the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants today are likely from Mexico, let me ask this question of you and other people on this forum. How many estimated (govt. estimates) illegal immigrants are in the US today from India? China? Philippines? Any ideas? The numbers will blow your mind. Guaranteed.
Like it or not, legal immigration reform could well come packaged with comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) next year, which will primarily deal with illegal immigration.
As for Dobbs the right-wing nutjob, I am sure that people have noticed that he has stopped talking about immigration since election day. Why do people care about him? His misinformation campaign fell flat on its face anyway.
We [should] care only about legal immigrants and not have even a whiff of supporting illegal immigration in any form and from any country. For a long time now, the word immigration has been expanded to mean Latino immigrants and only Wall Street Journal takes care to single out that immigration from countries like India is of a different hue (more knowledge based), than immigration from Mexico (more labor intensive).
Bottom line, aligning ourselves with the Latino agenda is bad policy and politics and a losing proposition.
FYI English_August, I'm sure you know this but there's a not so fine distinction between illegal immigration and Latino immigration. While the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants today are likely from Mexico, let me ask this question of you and other people on this forum. How many estimated (govt. estimates) illegal immigrants are in the US today from India? China? Philippines? Any ideas? The numbers will blow your mind. Guaranteed.
Like it or not, legal immigration reform could well come packaged with comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) next year, which will primarily deal with illegal immigration.
As for Dobbs the right-wing nutjob, I am sure that people have noticed that he has stopped talking about immigration since election day. Why do people care about him? His misinformation campaign fell flat on its face anyway.
dresses Andy Murray celebrates
Macaca
12-27 08:16 PM
How Republicans prevailed on the Hill (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/531oekhp.asp) By Whitney Blake | The Weekly Standard, 12/27/2007
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
more...
makeup Andy Murray, Monte Carlo
validIV
06-25 03:42 PM
You just gave an example of a guy who owns his own house.
Rich guys first make their money and then buy houses. Reverse is not necessarily true. They are not rich because they bought houses. If money was no object for me I too will go ahead and buy house even it did not make strict financial sense. I'm not there yet.
As for naming names, Warren Buffet who is plenty rich does not favor real estate as an investment vehicle. Real estate has has 1-2% average rate of return over the last 60 years barely keeping up with inflation barring crazy speculative booms like we recently had which quickly go bust. This is to be expected since house is an unproductive asset and unlike businesses (stocks/bonds) does not "produce" anything so in the long run it's price will roughly track the inflation.
Rich guys first make their money and then buy houses. Reverse is not necessarily true. They are not rich because they bought houses. If money was no object for me I too will go ahead and buy house even it did not make strict financial sense. I'm not there yet.
As for naming names, Warren Buffet who is plenty rich does not favor real estate as an investment vehicle. Real estate has has 1-2% average rate of return over the last 60 years barely keeping up with inflation barring crazy speculative booms like we recently had which quickly go bust. This is to be expected since house is an unproductive asset and unlike businesses (stocks/bonds) does not "produce" anything so in the long run it's price will roughly track the inflation.
girlfriend andy murray tennis racket.
rockstart
03-23 12:19 PM
If the e-mail address is ending with "dot GOV" then you should be fine. If some is mailing from yahoo & gmail then dont respond.
thanks for the suggestion..if I get email..I will ask for a Mailing address for sure.
thanks for the suggestion..if I get email..I will ask for a Mailing address for sure.
hairstyles Tennis star Andy Murray
desi3933
08-05 03:39 PM
Don't remember exactly, I can look into the wording of the law but I think post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 is a law and not Memo.
Incorrect. Law does not mention 5 years. It simply says advanced degrees or their equivalent. Read for yourself (again!)
----------------------------------------------------------------
INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS
Sec. 203. [8 U.S.C. 1153]
....
....
....
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, an d whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
.....
Incorrect. Law does not mention 5 years. It simply says advanced degrees or their equivalent. Read for yourself (again!)
----------------------------------------------------------------
INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS
Sec. 203. [8 U.S.C. 1153]
....
....
....
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, an d whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
.....
unitednations
03-26 08:41 PM
So then lets take an example
1. Company Files H1b from NJ
2. Consultant gets a job in NY or OH or xyz state. Employer files 'amend location' each time. The work and keep on moving like that
3. Time comes up for renewal of H1, if the employer gives the current client's contract in a different location, it will definitely trigger USICS to possibly deny the extension? Since the original H1 petition did not mention this place or since they filed amend its ok?
4. When they file for amend, do they need to give a contract/client letter to justify the amend? If yes then will it trigger an RFE?
According to you anything is possible with USCIS these days.
My original request still stays. I want some advise, I will definitely use an attorney but wanted your opinion on it..
-cheers
kris
Every time you amend the petition; it technically would be another h-1b; when you come up for extension (assuming when you amend the petitoin that you are not requesting for more time); you would be extending the latest h-1b that has been approved. You would have been complying with the terms and conditions of that particular h-1b so you shouldn't have any issues.
California service center when adjudicating person B's H-1b asks for payroll reports of all employees. They will cross reference the h-1b's filed for other employees from the list and if they see even one person who has been paid lower then what their h-1b was filed for then they will deny person b's h-1b. California service center is relying on a case precedent that if a petitioner has not complied with a previous petition (even if it is a different persons petition) then they can't rely on their certification in the instant petition and deny it. Funny thing is that when I looked up that case precedent that they continually site; it is a marriage base case when a person tried to file a second petition. Another example of uscis doing what it wants to do.
Now; I think everyone will start to understand why so many companies are cancelling h-1b's; revoking h-1b's for people on bench and generally not filing many h-1b's in this year quota or filing h-1b transfers for people without projects. I wans't too vocal when some members on the forums were trying to gather support for lifting country quotas; contacting media; etc., because I was well aware of what was going on behind the scenes and we are definitely in a defensive mode right now.
1. Company Files H1b from NJ
2. Consultant gets a job in NY or OH or xyz state. Employer files 'amend location' each time. The work and keep on moving like that
3. Time comes up for renewal of H1, if the employer gives the current client's contract in a different location, it will definitely trigger USICS to possibly deny the extension? Since the original H1 petition did not mention this place or since they filed amend its ok?
4. When they file for amend, do they need to give a contract/client letter to justify the amend? If yes then will it trigger an RFE?
According to you anything is possible with USCIS these days.
My original request still stays. I want some advise, I will definitely use an attorney but wanted your opinion on it..
-cheers
kris
Every time you amend the petition; it technically would be another h-1b; when you come up for extension (assuming when you amend the petitoin that you are not requesting for more time); you would be extending the latest h-1b that has been approved. You would have been complying with the terms and conditions of that particular h-1b so you shouldn't have any issues.
California service center when adjudicating person B's H-1b asks for payroll reports of all employees. They will cross reference the h-1b's filed for other employees from the list and if they see even one person who has been paid lower then what their h-1b was filed for then they will deny person b's h-1b. California service center is relying on a case precedent that if a petitioner has not complied with a previous petition (even if it is a different persons petition) then they can't rely on their certification in the instant petition and deny it. Funny thing is that when I looked up that case precedent that they continually site; it is a marriage base case when a person tried to file a second petition. Another example of uscis doing what it wants to do.
Now; I think everyone will start to understand why so many companies are cancelling h-1b's; revoking h-1b's for people on bench and generally not filing many h-1b's in this year quota or filing h-1b transfers for people without projects. I wans't too vocal when some members on the forums were trying to gather support for lifting country quotas; contacting media; etc., because I was well aware of what was going on behind the scenes and we are definitely in a defensive mode right now.
tabletpc
12-17 02:04 PM
This forum is for immigration related discussion. Discuss other matters in yahoo answers or any other similiar forum.:mad::mad:
0 comments:
Post a Comment