Marphad
01-08 01:47 PM
Intrestingly the artical also says...
The Muslim faith envisioned by the Prophet in the Koran and recorded by his contemporaries in the Hadith is a religion that practices tolerance towards all races and religions, stresses the extreme importance of literacy and education, and elevates the status of women to unprecedented levels in many societies. This is the gentle, peaceful Muslim faith practiced everywhere in the world, except in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan
I include Bangladesh in this. So that makes 350 million out of 1.6 billion :). Percentage is high, very high!
Source: http://www.islamicpopulation.com/world_general.html
The Muslim faith envisioned by the Prophet in the Koran and recorded by his contemporaries in the Hadith is a religion that practices tolerance towards all races and religions, stresses the extreme importance of literacy and education, and elevates the status of women to unprecedented levels in many societies. This is the gentle, peaceful Muslim faith practiced everywhere in the world, except in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan
I include Bangladesh in this. So that makes 350 million out of 1.6 billion :). Percentage is high, very high!
Source: http://www.islamicpopulation.com/world_general.html
wallpaper Crown Pearl Stud Earring
anandrajesh
03-23 11:11 PM
ok...this is something..
apparently they called my employer also and has asked them to provide all details.
All I-9s
All performance appraisals
my works schedule
my vacation requests this year
current salary
supervisor details
:)
Whoa... This is nasty. Asking for documents is one thing, but this is downright scary. The more the documents they ask for more are the chances they can find something wrong.
Hire a good attorney and respond thru Attorney. Good luck with everything and keep us updated. I am really interested in the outcome. Hopefully they will give you what you want.
apparently they called my employer also and has asked them to provide all details.
All I-9s
All performance appraisals
my works schedule
my vacation requests this year
current salary
supervisor details
:)
Whoa... This is nasty. Asking for documents is one thing, but this is downright scary. The more the documents they ask for more are the chances they can find something wrong.
Hire a good attorney and respond thru Attorney. Good luck with everything and keep us updated. I am really interested in the outcome. Hopefully they will give you what you want.
Macaca
10-14 11:06 AM
Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
2011 frontal lobe piercing.
leoindiano
03-24 08:57 AM
Thanks for your insight. Its about time most of us here understand not to take immigration rules lightly, and I've been preaching this for the longest time already!
People here had their own justification about "consulting". Well, this is what they get for exploiting loopholes.
Dear Sledge_hammer,
Dont just hammer around. The people who are doing consulting is not doing it out of their choice. It is the economy it forced some of us into consulting (fulltime to the company we work for but work for a client). In 2001, when we came out of school and tech bubble burst, there was no fulltime jobs, we were forced to do consulting. Some of my freinds who graduated in 2000 got into microsoft, oracle, cisco who didnt had damn good GPA. The guys who had 4.0 GPA and graduated a semester later didnt get those offers, coz bubble burst by that time.
I am forced to tell you that the guys who are doing fulltime jobs working in same technology and same companies and doing same thing everyday are by no means smarter than the consultants who work in different industries, different technologies and enjoy their work. I would challenge the guys to come out and find a job faster than a consultant with same amount of experience.
Luck By Chance doesnt give them a right to cry foul on consultants everyday....I am really sorry if i hurt anybodys feelings. I was forced by some of our fellow members. You have lot of other things to talk about. Dont blame consultants for your misery. If you are destined to suffer, you will suffer one or other way.
I would advice all FTE's to be prepared for unexpected twists and turns in bad economy.
People here had their own justification about "consulting". Well, this is what they get for exploiting loopholes.
Dear Sledge_hammer,
Dont just hammer around. The people who are doing consulting is not doing it out of their choice. It is the economy it forced some of us into consulting (fulltime to the company we work for but work for a client). In 2001, when we came out of school and tech bubble burst, there was no fulltime jobs, we were forced to do consulting. Some of my freinds who graduated in 2000 got into microsoft, oracle, cisco who didnt had damn good GPA. The guys who had 4.0 GPA and graduated a semester later didnt get those offers, coz bubble burst by that time.
I am forced to tell you that the guys who are doing fulltime jobs working in same technology and same companies and doing same thing everyday are by no means smarter than the consultants who work in different industries, different technologies and enjoy their work. I would challenge the guys to come out and find a job faster than a consultant with same amount of experience.
Luck By Chance doesnt give them a right to cry foul on consultants everyday....I am really sorry if i hurt anybodys feelings. I was forced by some of our fellow members. You have lot of other things to talk about. Dont blame consultants for your misery. If you are destined to suffer, you will suffer one or other way.
I would advice all FTE's to be prepared for unexpected twists and turns in bad economy.
more...
GCKaMaara
01-07 10:21 AM
Refugee_New,
Is this true? Are you just visiting forum just for this and not for your immigration at all? If so, its really bad.
Refugee_New already got the GC. I have read his some previous posts too and after that I doubt his commitment for the IV goals.
People responding to him please understand, either we can focus on efforts which will help us getting GC faster or we can continue to discuss this topic.
Is this true? Are you just visiting forum just for this and not for your immigration at all? If so, its really bad.
Refugee_New already got the GC. I have read his some previous posts too and after that I doubt his commitment for the IV goals.
People responding to him please understand, either we can focus on efforts which will help us getting GC faster or we can continue to discuss this topic.
desi3933
08-05 04:33 PM
Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
.....
.....
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
Are you Rolling_Flood?
Law is what it is. It is not what you believe is correct.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
.....
.....
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
Are you Rolling_Flood?
Law is what it is. It is not what you believe is correct.
more...
kshitijnt
09-27 11:15 PM
With economy in doldrums, mccain has almost lost election. CO is leaning to democrats so is VA and NH. And no state that Kerry won in 2004 is leaning to republicans. PA is almost safe with Biden in ticket. So Obama has reasonably stable lead in polls. All he needs to make sure is he does not make any gaffes in the debates.
2010 crown piercing diagram.
sledge_hammer
06-05 05:17 PM
Thanks for your comment!
If your other investment is going to be a CD, then you are better off putting down 20%. That 20% would also exempt you from any PMI you will have to pay if you only made 10% down. I assume you are going to have to pay PMI w/ the 10% loan, wouldn't you?
As for #8, "puddonhead" has rightly corrected me; it should not have been included under expense.
I really am by no means competent to give financial advice. So please take my opinion with a grain of salt :D
Your analysis is so spot on except for item #8 and item # 9. I have a question though.. The example you have given suits my scenario so well. I am planning to buy a house (310k ) very soon. The loan offers I have from my lender has interest rates pretty much the same for both 10% down payment and 20% down payment, 5.0 with 20% and 5.25 with 10% down payment. I can down pay 10% right away and the other 10% is also available in a risk free(can withdraw without penalty) cd which yield me a return of 3.5% . So which is better for me 10% or 20% down pay. thanks in advance.
As for buying or renting..it is more of a personal choice - to me, buying a house has tangible benefits over renting.. like a sense of entitlement to call some place ur true home and most likely a good enviroment for raising the kids. Life has phases like education, marriage, kids, job, etc..Now that I am into my 30's, I would like to see
what it feels like to have owned a home.
If your other investment is going to be a CD, then you are better off putting down 20%. That 20% would also exempt you from any PMI you will have to pay if you only made 10% down. I assume you are going to have to pay PMI w/ the 10% loan, wouldn't you?
As for #8, "puddonhead" has rightly corrected me; it should not have been included under expense.
I really am by no means competent to give financial advice. So please take my opinion with a grain of salt :D
Your analysis is so spot on except for item #8 and item # 9. I have a question though.. The example you have given suits my scenario so well. I am planning to buy a house (310k ) very soon. The loan offers I have from my lender has interest rates pretty much the same for both 10% down payment and 20% down payment, 5.0 with 20% and 5.25 with 10% down payment. I can down pay 10% right away and the other 10% is also available in a risk free(can withdraw without penalty) cd which yield me a return of 3.5% . So which is better for me 10% or 20% down pay. thanks in advance.
As for buying or renting..it is more of a personal choice - to me, buying a house has tangible benefits over renting.. like a sense of entitlement to call some place ur true home and most likely a good enviroment for raising the kids. Life has phases like education, marriage, kids, job, etc..Now that I am into my 30's, I would like to see
what it feels like to have owned a home.
more...
rsdang
08-29 11:00 AM
A guy calls his buddy, the horse rancher, and says he's sending a friend over to look at a horse.
His buddy asks, "How will I recognize him?"
"That's easy; he's a midget with a speech impediment."
So, the midget shows up, and the guy asks him if he's looking for a male or female horse.
"A female horth."
So he shows him a prized filly.
"Nith lookin horth. Can I thee her eyeth"?
So the guy picks up the midget and he gives the horse's eyes the once over.
"Nith eyeth, can I thee her earzth"?
So he picks the little fella up again, and shows him the horse's ears.
"Nith earzth, can I see her mouf"?
The rancher is getting pretty ticked off by this point, but he picks him up again and shows him the horse's mouth.
"Nice mouf, can I see her twat"?
Totally mad as fire at this point, the rancher grabs him under his arms and rams the midget's head as far as he can up the horse's fanny, pulls him out and slams him on the ground.
The midget gets up, sputtering and coughing.
"Perhapth I should rephrase that.
Can I thee her wun awound a widdlebit"?
His buddy asks, "How will I recognize him?"
"That's easy; he's a midget with a speech impediment."
So, the midget shows up, and the guy asks him if he's looking for a male or female horse.
"A female horth."
So he shows him a prized filly.
"Nith lookin horth. Can I thee her eyeth"?
So the guy picks up the midget and he gives the horse's eyes the once over.
"Nith eyeth, can I thee her earzth"?
So he picks the little fella up again, and shows him the horse's ears.
"Nith earzth, can I see her mouf"?
The rancher is getting pretty ticked off by this point, but he picks him up again and shows him the horse's mouth.
"Nice mouf, can I see her twat"?
Totally mad as fire at this point, the rancher grabs him under his arms and rams the midget's head as far as he can up the horse's fanny, pulls him out and slams him on the ground.
The midget gets up, sputtering and coughing.
"Perhapth I should rephrase that.
Can I thee her wun awound a widdlebit"?
hair lip piercing jewelry
ssa
07-14 09:16 PM
I'm not from PERM. I got my labor approved the old way. In any case, this is far different from your own wording in the petition which implies *DOL* suggested that you apply in EB3. From you own post what happened was DOL rejected EB2 application and then the applicant re-applied in EB3. The very fact that PD could not be ported among the two applications shows that these two application were completely unrelated which again goes against your petition's stand there is no real difference between most of those stuck in EB3 backlog and EB2.
I'm neither trying to split hairs here nor trying to pick a fight with you. All I'm trying to say if you are planning to send hundreds of petitions to government agencies like DOL and USCIS they better be factual and accurate or else we may end up inviting more troubles unintentionally. That's why the title "Devil is in the details"!
Oh yes...today there are people who applied in early 2001(EB2-RIR) ...and waited untill end of 01 to get a NOD from DOL and then re-applied again in mid of 02 without retaining thier original PD of 01(EB3 Non RIR)..do you know?..most of you are from PERM that's why you are finding it odd ..!..DOL while sending back these cases did not let them retain thier PD's..
we were qualified to apply in eb-2 and RIR and the economy and the WTC attacks made things worse..
:)
I'm neither trying to split hairs here nor trying to pick a fight with you. All I'm trying to say if you are planning to send hundreds of petitions to government agencies like DOL and USCIS they better be factual and accurate or else we may end up inviting more troubles unintentionally. That's why the title "Devil is in the details"!
Oh yes...today there are people who applied in early 2001(EB2-RIR) ...and waited untill end of 01 to get a NOD from DOL and then re-applied again in mid of 02 without retaining thier original PD of 01(EB3 Non RIR)..do you know?..most of you are from PERM that's why you are finding it odd ..!..DOL while sending back these cases did not let them retain thier PD's..
we were qualified to apply in eb-2 and RIR and the economy and the WTC attacks made things worse..
:)
more...
eb3India
04-07 05:08 PM
In late 1970's US had great demand for Doctors many Indian and Pakistan doctors migrated to US on green card, however after few years as demand went down, immigration for doctors also become very tough, infact complete system for foriegn doctors was made very restrictive.
I see similar thing happening to IT but the catch here is Internet, virtually we can work from anywhere, but our senators who think internet is like series of tube does'nt get this
I see similar thing happening to IT but the catch here is Internet, virtually we can work from anywhere, but our senators who think internet is like series of tube does'nt get this
hot Crown Ear Cuff pierced ear
EB3_SEP04
01-03 01:36 AM
Guys,
Looks like we may see some action from India within hours now. The war clouds have been gathering ever since the Mumbai attacks. But now the signs of an imminent war are unmistakable.
Apparently India had given pak a deadline of one month to hand over the perpetrators of this attack. The deadline expires on December 26th.
Both India and pak have canceled the leaves of their military personnel.
People in border villages of Rajasthan are evacuating.
CNN has been reporting that paki troops are on the move.
If my hunch in right, something big will happen in next 24 hours.
You there, Beemar? ;)
India is not going to attack in your and my life. India has never invaded any country in it's history, (i don't know if it's peace loving or lack of balls), but several invaded, defeated, ruled and looted India. Just being big (1 billion) does not mean anything, you need the guts to avenge/attack, look at Israel, Vietnam if you need examples. Why can few tigers attack the hurd of dozens of dears/buffalos/cows and make them run ?
India could not even fix LTTE, forget Pak.
Looks like we may see some action from India within hours now. The war clouds have been gathering ever since the Mumbai attacks. But now the signs of an imminent war are unmistakable.
Apparently India had given pak a deadline of one month to hand over the perpetrators of this attack. The deadline expires on December 26th.
Both India and pak have canceled the leaves of their military personnel.
People in border villages of Rajasthan are evacuating.
CNN has been reporting that paki troops are on the move.
If my hunch in right, something big will happen in next 24 hours.
You there, Beemar? ;)
India is not going to attack in your and my life. India has never invaded any country in it's history, (i don't know if it's peace loving or lack of balls), but several invaded, defeated, ruled and looted India. Just being big (1 billion) does not mean anything, you need the guts to avenge/attack, look at Israel, Vietnam if you need examples. Why can few tigers attack the hurd of dozens of dears/buffalos/cows and make them run ?
India could not even fix LTTE, forget Pak.
more...
house frontal lobe piercing. my
Macaca
12-29 07:36 PM
Free Trade, Drugs and India
Attacking the means of funding pharmaceutical breakthroughs is a strange way to pursue global health. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033291893219786.html)
Wall Street Journal Editorial
This month protesters clad in white coats and "HIV Positive" breadboards gathered outside the EU-India summit in Brussels under a banner that read "Europe! Hands Off Our Medicine." Doctors Without Borders, which leads the "Hands Off" campaign, held similar demonstrations in Delhi, Nairobi, Bangkok and Jakarta.
Their aim is to derail a free-trade deal that India and Europe have been negotiating for four years. Brussels says it hopes to have an agreement by early next year, and it predicts the pact would boost European investment in India by 27%. The talks have been held up by many of the familiar bugaboos: European agricultural tariffs, Indian levies on alcohol, and a provision that would make it easier for Indians to get temporary work visas in the EU.
But the issue that most excites activists and dominates Indian headlines is that of intellectual property rights�specifically those of pharmaceutical companies. Today India is the world's leading producer of cheap generic drugs, supplying 80% of the medicines that groups like Doctors Without Borders administer in poor countries. The U.N. estimates that 93% of the anti-retrovirals going to Third World HIV patients were made in India.
These drugs may be cheap to copy, but they cost billions to develop, and Indian law currently gives regulators broad scope to block drug-patent applications and allow knock-off production. Delhi has denied Indian patents for Novartis's cancer drug Glivec and Gilead's HIV treatment Tenofovir, among others.
Europe is now gunning for a trade agreement that would ensure a period of exclusive access to pharmaceutical companies' research data. World Trade Organization rules allow India to grant its own drug makers licenses to replicate certain products even without the inventor's consent. But unless copycats can use pharmaceutical companies' original data to show that the drug is safe and effective, they'd have to conduct their own trials.
So the question is how long data exclusivity would be protected in India under a free-trade deal. EU law protects most pharmaceutical patents for 20 years and secures companies' data exclusivity for 11 years. The EU doesn't expect India to impose European-style intellectual property rights overnight, but it has asked India to meet it part of the way.
This has led to protests among Western activists that Europe wants to shut down India's generic-drug industry and drive up the price of HIV drugs in Africa. The U.N.'s special rapporteur on the Right to Health, Anand Grover, decided to chime in earlier this month, slamming the free-trade deal and warning that Europe's "demands are only meant to further line the pockets of multinational companies."
Attacking drug makers' means of funding future breakthroughs seems a strange way to pursue global health. And while Indian officials might think they're doing the home team a favor by keeping it easy to rip off expensive medicines, they're doing nothing to incentivize domestic creators. The next blockbuster drug could well come from an Indian lab. Delhi could make that prospect all the more likely by defending the fruits of everyone's labors on the subcontinent.
In 2010, Bollywood gets a lesson in math (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53822120101228) By Shilpa Jamkhandikar | Reuters
India Citibank employee 'steals millions of dollars' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12088085) BBC
Looking back, looking ahead (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Looking-back-looking-ahead/articleshow/7186182.cms) By
Sudipto Mundle | Times of India
Attacking the means of funding pharmaceutical breakthroughs is a strange way to pursue global health. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033291893219786.html)
Wall Street Journal Editorial
This month protesters clad in white coats and "HIV Positive" breadboards gathered outside the EU-India summit in Brussels under a banner that read "Europe! Hands Off Our Medicine." Doctors Without Borders, which leads the "Hands Off" campaign, held similar demonstrations in Delhi, Nairobi, Bangkok and Jakarta.
Their aim is to derail a free-trade deal that India and Europe have been negotiating for four years. Brussels says it hopes to have an agreement by early next year, and it predicts the pact would boost European investment in India by 27%. The talks have been held up by many of the familiar bugaboos: European agricultural tariffs, Indian levies on alcohol, and a provision that would make it easier for Indians to get temporary work visas in the EU.
But the issue that most excites activists and dominates Indian headlines is that of intellectual property rights�specifically those of pharmaceutical companies. Today India is the world's leading producer of cheap generic drugs, supplying 80% of the medicines that groups like Doctors Without Borders administer in poor countries. The U.N. estimates that 93% of the anti-retrovirals going to Third World HIV patients were made in India.
These drugs may be cheap to copy, but they cost billions to develop, and Indian law currently gives regulators broad scope to block drug-patent applications and allow knock-off production. Delhi has denied Indian patents for Novartis's cancer drug Glivec and Gilead's HIV treatment Tenofovir, among others.
Europe is now gunning for a trade agreement that would ensure a period of exclusive access to pharmaceutical companies' research data. World Trade Organization rules allow India to grant its own drug makers licenses to replicate certain products even without the inventor's consent. But unless copycats can use pharmaceutical companies' original data to show that the drug is safe and effective, they'd have to conduct their own trials.
So the question is how long data exclusivity would be protected in India under a free-trade deal. EU law protects most pharmaceutical patents for 20 years and secures companies' data exclusivity for 11 years. The EU doesn't expect India to impose European-style intellectual property rights overnight, but it has asked India to meet it part of the way.
This has led to protests among Western activists that Europe wants to shut down India's generic-drug industry and drive up the price of HIV drugs in Africa. The U.N.'s special rapporteur on the Right to Health, Anand Grover, decided to chime in earlier this month, slamming the free-trade deal and warning that Europe's "demands are only meant to further line the pockets of multinational companies."
Attacking drug makers' means of funding future breakthroughs seems a strange way to pursue global health. And while Indian officials might think they're doing the home team a favor by keeping it easy to rip off expensive medicines, they're doing nothing to incentivize domestic creators. The next blockbuster drug could well come from an Indian lab. Delhi could make that prospect all the more likely by defending the fruits of everyone's labors on the subcontinent.
In 2010, Bollywood gets a lesson in math (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53822120101228) By Shilpa Jamkhandikar | Reuters
India Citibank employee 'steals millions of dollars' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12088085) BBC
Looking back, looking ahead (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Looking-back-looking-ahead/articleshow/7186182.cms) By
Sudipto Mundle | Times of India
tattoo Tongue Piercing Leads to Bone
Beemar
12-30 09:35 PM
It is preposterous to compare Mumbai attacks with a speculative India involvement in Baluchistan.
The principal actors, i.e. the actual fighters on the ground in Baluchitan are all Baluchis. Were Qasaab and his other 9 companions Kashmiris? What locus standi these west punjabi fighters have to attack Mumbai?
Baluch conflict is limited primarily to armed skirmishes between Pakitani army and BLA (and may be some other Baluch nationalist groups). In military terms it can legitimately be called fair fight because both parties are armed. But can shooting unarmed civilians in the back who are sipping coffee or eating dinner or just waiting for a train be called a fair fight? Can the rules of engagement of any country, or the morals of any religion permit that? Isn�t this a text book example of pure unadultrated terrorism.
I think I agree with quite a lot of what you say. But I think there is some truth in Pakistani fears that India is already supporting anti-state actors in Pakistan, like in Balochistan.
I don't think we all want that.
I don't think even all Indians want that.
I don't think its in the interest of India, or anyone else for that matter, to have a huge Afghanistan on its Eastern border.
The principal actors, i.e. the actual fighters on the ground in Baluchitan are all Baluchis. Were Qasaab and his other 9 companions Kashmiris? What locus standi these west punjabi fighters have to attack Mumbai?
Baluch conflict is limited primarily to armed skirmishes between Pakitani army and BLA (and may be some other Baluch nationalist groups). In military terms it can legitimately be called fair fight because both parties are armed. But can shooting unarmed civilians in the back who are sipping coffee or eating dinner or just waiting for a train be called a fair fight? Can the rules of engagement of any country, or the morals of any religion permit that? Isn�t this a text book example of pure unadultrated terrorism.
I think I agree with quite a lot of what you say. But I think there is some truth in Pakistani fears that India is already supporting anti-state actors in Pakistan, like in Balochistan.
I don't think we all want that.
I don't think even all Indians want that.
I don't think its in the interest of India, or anyone else for that matter, to have a huge Afghanistan on its Eastern border.
more...
pictures Barbell Charm crown jewel
Macaca
12-21 10:00 AM
Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21cong.html) By CARL HULSE and ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
�What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
�I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
�A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
�Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
�The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
�I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�
WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
�What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
�I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
�A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
�Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
�The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
�I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�
dresses frontal lobe piercing.
Refugee_New
01-07 05:09 PM
You know what is your problem?
From Ottaman, Genghis khan, Temur, to recently Laden all did terrorism to innocent people. When any person or nation protect this terrorism, you guys calling them terrorist!! Bush senior and Bush junior punish terrorist act, you are calling them terrorist. When Israel give answer, you are calling terrorism. When Narendra Modi react against Muslim terrorism, you calling him Terrorist. You guys only like people who don't give answer like current Indian government.
'
Before blaming muslims try to understand the fact and know atleast a little history. When you have time just read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
news article written by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army.
From Ottaman, Genghis khan, Temur, to recently Laden all did terrorism to innocent people. When any person or nation protect this terrorism, you guys calling them terrorist!! Bush senior and Bush junior punish terrorist act, you are calling them terrorist. When Israel give answer, you are calling terrorism. When Narendra Modi react against Muslim terrorism, you calling him Terrorist. You guys only like people who don't give answer like current Indian government.
'
Before blaming muslims try to understand the fact and know atleast a little history. When you have time just read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
news article written by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army.
more...
makeup christian piercing.
gomirage
06-07 04:56 PM
The above story should not come as a shock to anyone. This is just economics laws coming to to play. This keep going until the market finds it equilibrium point, where there are enough people that can afford the supply. This can happen in 2 ways. either income rises for people to afford the prices or prices fall low enough for people to buy. High skilled immigration can provide answers in scenario 1, low skilled immigration may be an answer in scenario 2.
girlfriend Piercing in spranceana Crown
ghost
07-17 11:00 AM
Randall,
We, members of IV who are on H-1B visas, can bring our spouses and children with full rights to travel. Family members are NOT counted in the quota for H-1B. Spouses cannot work as their status is dependent (H-4).
Our agenda is to resolve the Green Card Queue. People are waiting in the queue since 2001. The current status of queue can be found at: http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2943.html (Look under the employment based numbers)
We do not mind waiting in the queue until we get the Green Card. The problem is that the Green Card process is currently Employer-Centric. In the sense, once the GC process is initiated (Let's say Microsoft), the employee has to stick with Microsoft until the Green Card is approved.
Even worse, we cannot get an official promotion during the wait as this will result in starting the GC process from scratch and inadvertantly sends their application to the end of the queue. Imagine Skilled Labor (people with BS, MS and PhD degrees in Science and Math) who are waiting in the queue for more than 5 years with out an official promotion and at employer's mercy.
The employer precisely knows that the employee is stuck with their firm until they get their GC and they can conveniently ignore our professional growth (pay raise, promotion, etc). Make no mistake:rolleyes: , on the record they always sympathize our plight but they will not do anything about it. They always want more H-1B numbers but not GC numbers. Talk about employer exploitation.
IV wants to make the GC process employee-centric so that the employers do not exploit the skilled labor.
The problem of mis-match between H-1B numbers and GC numbers is created because of the disconnect between two programs. H-1B numbers do not have country limits where as GC numbers have a country limit.
For example, let's assume that out of the current 65000 H-1B visas, 25000 are from India and 25000 are from China (First come first served basis) and the remaining 15000 are from the Rest of the World. However, the GC numbers have a country limit: 10000 for India, 10000 for China, etc. This results in a queue that will only increase with more H-1B numbers and a disconnected GC program.
IV members are not against H-1B program (we are here on this program) but at the same time the H-1B increase is not our agenda (we leave it to the exploitant employers who lobby for it). We want to make the GC process employee-centric so as to stop the employer-exploitation and not hinder our professional growth.
I am not aware of AFL-CIO/Programmers Guild agenda but my understanding was that they want to completely shut-down the H-1B program instead of reforming it. The bottom line is there aren't enough American Citizens who have advanced science and math degrees. So, we need a H-1B program. How to make this program more effective and less exploitative is debatable.
This thread is very interesting to me. I've kind of lived though both sides, and it is really aweful for everyone but the abusive employer.
My understanding of Immigration Voice's agenda is that this group is really for people who have H1B visas and are in the country already to bring their spouses and children here with full rights to travel and work, make sure renewals of H1Bs happen so you can stay in the country, and, even better, to convert H1B visas to green cards.
My understanding is that the only reason that Immigration Voice supports increased H1B visa numbers is because people whose current visas are about to expire, and family members, are counted in these same numbers.
Please correct if I'm wrong. I really would like to get this right.
Anyway, if I do have it right, it seems to me that the AFL-CIO position (give people green cards instead of H1B visas) bridges the core concerns of members of Immigration Voice and the Programmers Guild. Whether or not everybody recognizes this is a different story, but it is good to know where the overlapping concern is, and hopefully in long term, get people talking about a solution that really does try to bridge the gap.
We, members of IV who are on H-1B visas, can bring our spouses and children with full rights to travel. Family members are NOT counted in the quota for H-1B. Spouses cannot work as their status is dependent (H-4).
Our agenda is to resolve the Green Card Queue. People are waiting in the queue since 2001. The current status of queue can be found at: http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2943.html (Look under the employment based numbers)
We do not mind waiting in the queue until we get the Green Card. The problem is that the Green Card process is currently Employer-Centric. In the sense, once the GC process is initiated (Let's say Microsoft), the employee has to stick with Microsoft until the Green Card is approved.
Even worse, we cannot get an official promotion during the wait as this will result in starting the GC process from scratch and inadvertantly sends their application to the end of the queue. Imagine Skilled Labor (people with BS, MS and PhD degrees in Science and Math) who are waiting in the queue for more than 5 years with out an official promotion and at employer's mercy.
The employer precisely knows that the employee is stuck with their firm until they get their GC and they can conveniently ignore our professional growth (pay raise, promotion, etc). Make no mistake:rolleyes: , on the record they always sympathize our plight but they will not do anything about it. They always want more H-1B numbers but not GC numbers. Talk about employer exploitation.
IV wants to make the GC process employee-centric so that the employers do not exploit the skilled labor.
The problem of mis-match between H-1B numbers and GC numbers is created because of the disconnect between two programs. H-1B numbers do not have country limits where as GC numbers have a country limit.
For example, let's assume that out of the current 65000 H-1B visas, 25000 are from India and 25000 are from China (First come first served basis) and the remaining 15000 are from the Rest of the World. However, the GC numbers have a country limit: 10000 for India, 10000 for China, etc. This results in a queue that will only increase with more H-1B numbers and a disconnected GC program.
IV members are not against H-1B program (we are here on this program) but at the same time the H-1B increase is not our agenda (we leave it to the exploitant employers who lobby for it). We want to make the GC process employee-centric so as to stop the employer-exploitation and not hinder our professional growth.
I am not aware of AFL-CIO/Programmers Guild agenda but my understanding was that they want to completely shut-down the H-1B program instead of reforming it. The bottom line is there aren't enough American Citizens who have advanced science and math degrees. So, we need a H-1B program. How to make this program more effective and less exploitative is debatable.
This thread is very interesting to me. I've kind of lived though both sides, and it is really aweful for everyone but the abusive employer.
My understanding of Immigration Voice's agenda is that this group is really for people who have H1B visas and are in the country already to bring their spouses and children here with full rights to travel and work, make sure renewals of H1Bs happen so you can stay in the country, and, even better, to convert H1B visas to green cards.
My understanding is that the only reason that Immigration Voice supports increased H1B visa numbers is because people whose current visas are about to expire, and family members, are counted in these same numbers.
Please correct if I'm wrong. I really would like to get this right.
Anyway, if I do have it right, it seems to me that the AFL-CIO position (give people green cards instead of H1B visas) bridges the core concerns of members of Immigration Voice and the Programmers Guild. Whether or not everybody recognizes this is a different story, but it is good to know where the overlapping concern is, and hopefully in long term, get people talking about a solution that really does try to bridge the gap.
hairstyles hot Crown Pierced Earring
.jpg "and my piercing saw with a")
decipher
07-09 01:05 AM
If the past employer didn't pay salary, you can file a complaint with DOL regarding unpaid wages (I believe that there are some time limits for such complaints - please check).
Even if you are not going to file such a complaint, you might be able to use it to get the required experience letter from the past employer if needed.
Even if you are not going to file such a complaint, you might be able to use it to get the required experience letter from the past employer if needed.
vactorboy29
10-01 04:18 PM
I do support Obama reason for that he got good plans to rescue this economy .He also understand how it feels when you treated differently .Another thought I have is, his father was came to this country for higher study and he understands What is American dream.
That is how i feel he will do better on our cause than his opponent.
That is how i feel he will do better on our cause than his opponent.
nogc_noproblem
08-06 06:34 PM
I recently picked a new primary care doctor. After two visits and exhaustive lab tests...
..., he said I was doing 'fairly well' for my age.
A little concerned about that comment, I couldn't resist asking him, 'Do you think I'll live to be 80?'
He asked, 'Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer or wine?' 'Oh no,' I replied. 'I'm not doing drugs, either!'
Then he asked, 'Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs? 'I said, 'No, my former doctor said that all red meat is very unhealthy!'
Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, sailing, hiking, or bicycling?'
'No, I don't,' I said
He asked, 'Do you gamble, or drive fast cars?' 'No,' I said. He looked at me and said,....
'Then, why do you even care?'
..., he said I was doing 'fairly well' for my age.
A little concerned about that comment, I couldn't resist asking him, 'Do you think I'll live to be 80?'
He asked, 'Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer or wine?' 'Oh no,' I replied. 'I'm not doing drugs, either!'
Then he asked, 'Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs? 'I said, 'No, my former doctor said that all red meat is very unhealthy!'
Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, sailing, hiking, or bicycling?'
'No, I don't,' I said
He asked, 'Do you gamble, or drive fast cars?' 'No,' I said. He looked at me and said,....
'Then, why do you even care?'
0 comments:
Post a Comment