pasupuleti
06-21 06:50 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/06/21/EDGDOILMUV1.DTL
wallpaper Jennifer Lopez#39;s divalicious
pd_recapturing
08-05 07:48 AM
What a Bull Sh** ?? Are you saying that ppl who have applied under eb2 are the only ones who satisfy the eb2 criteria and eb3s can not satisfy the eb2 criteria ??? Come on ...this eb2 and eb3 thing is highly abused by lawyers, employers or employees .. I guess, you are in eb2 but I am sure if you go line by line of the law to recheck your eb2 eligibility, you might not even qualify for eb10,11, etc ....
Dipika
08-05 09:04 AM
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, .....
Why ppl jump from EB3 to EB2? because EB3 backlog is huge and they are waiting since 4/5 yrs to get GC.
if these 4/5 yrs experience added, then they are eligible for EB2.
To stop jump from Eb3 to EB2 best way is to make EB2 current, so EB3 start getting GC and they stop comming to EB2.
So Lets put efforts to clear backlog, which IV is doing rather differenciating our friends based on different categories.
we should do progress togather. Remember we are I + We (IV).
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, .....
Why ppl jump from EB3 to EB2? because EB3 backlog is huge and they are waiting since 4/5 yrs to get GC.
if these 4/5 yrs experience added, then they are eligible for EB2.
To stop jump from Eb3 to EB2 best way is to make EB2 current, so EB3 start getting GC and they stop comming to EB2.
So Lets put efforts to clear backlog, which IV is doing rather differenciating our friends based on different categories.
we should do progress togather. Remember we are I + We (IV).
2011 Jennifer Lopez/PR Photos
gc_chahiye
08-14 08:49 PM
To United Nation
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
UN can correct me, but I believe upto 180 days of out of status is automatically pardoned in EB-AOS cases. Since yours is within that limit, you should be ok.
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
UN can correct me, but I believe upto 180 days of out of status is automatically pardoned in EB-AOS cases. Since yours is within that limit, you should be ok.
more...
gchopes
06-25 08:27 AM
I agree that over 10 years buyers "may" come ahead of renters but our question is will buyers of : 2009 come out ahead of 2010 buyers or 2011 buyers? Also is it worth taking a risk and wait 1-2 years given the state of economy and our GC in limbo.
-- The GC limbo is going be there for the next 10 years so we can't take that as a factor in our home buying decision for this year or the next couple years. We are still going to be waiting for a GC in 2010 and 2011.
I have been paying rent since 2001 and my friends bought houses in 2004 & 2007. None at the moment think they are ahead of me due to their decision :) :p
-- 2004 and 2007 was the peak of the housing market. 2008 was the meltdown. Buyers who didn't buy in 2009 when the interest rates were at a 30 yr low are missing out big time. In just a month the rates have gone up. Not sure where they will be in 2010 and 2011 but a 30 year low point is good enough for me.
-- The GC limbo is going be there for the next 10 years so we can't take that as a factor in our home buying decision for this year or the next couple years. We are still going to be waiting for a GC in 2010 and 2011.
I have been paying rent since 2001 and my friends bought houses in 2004 & 2007. None at the moment think they are ahead of me due to their decision :) :p
-- 2004 and 2007 was the peak of the housing market. 2008 was the meltdown. Buyers who didn't buy in 2009 when the interest rates were at a 30 yr low are missing out big time. In just a month the rates have gone up. Not sure where they will be in 2010 and 2011 but a 30 year low point is good enough for me.
alterego
09-27 09:04 PM
The Nov. bulletin will very much depend on whether the USCIS has completed their inventory evaluation process or not. If not then it will be a reprint of the Oct. Bulletin, if they have then I anticipate good EB2 I movement and fair EB3 I movement. EB3 ROW should see more gradual movement.
more...
xyzgc
01-10 11:04 PM
First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
The world feels Israeli attacks is disproportionate. The recent Gaza attacks and the Lebanese attacks are deemed disproportionate. But that's the only answer to rockets being launched into Israel and the bombing of commercial establishments in Tel Aviv.
India does not attack Pakistan's terrorist camps at all.
Its another example of grossly disproportionate response!!:mad:.
Islamic fanatics come and violate my motherland at will makes my blood boil in useless rage. I'm even more appalled when Indians themselves remain insensitive of this fact and want to preach peace.
India is not Israel and Israel is not India. Israel not only attacks the terrorists but also exports weapons to India. Such a tiny nation, one of the most advanced nations in South-West Asia and takes the bull by its horns!. India imports weapons from Israel, has growing defence budget of tens of billion dollars and does nothing to stop terrorism. Its absurd!
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
The world feels Israeli attacks is disproportionate. The recent Gaza attacks and the Lebanese attacks are deemed disproportionate. But that's the only answer to rockets being launched into Israel and the bombing of commercial establishments in Tel Aviv.
India does not attack Pakistan's terrorist camps at all.
Its another example of grossly disproportionate response!!:mad:.
Islamic fanatics come and violate my motherland at will makes my blood boil in useless rage. I'm even more appalled when Indians themselves remain insensitive of this fact and want to preach peace.
India is not Israel and Israel is not India. Israel not only attacks the terrorists but also exports weapons to India. Such a tiny nation, one of the most advanced nations in South-West Asia and takes the bull by its horns!. India imports weapons from Israel, has growing defence budget of tens of billion dollars and does nothing to stop terrorism. Its absurd!
2010 Jennifer Lopez Without Make-up
Macaca
05-15 06:05 PM
Why Worry? It�s Good for You (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/business/economy/15view.html) By ROBERT H. FRANK | New York Times
THE late Amos Tversky, a Stanford psychologist and a founding father of behavioral economics, used to say, �My colleagues, they study artificial intelligence; me, I study natural stupidity.�
In recent decades, behavioral economics has been the economics profession�s runaway growth area. Scholars in this field work largely at the intersection of economics and psychology, and much of their attention has focused on systematic biases in people�s judgments and decisions.
They point out, for example, that people are particularly inept at predicting how changes in their life circumstances will affect their happiness. Even when the changes are huge � positive or negative � most people adapt much more quickly and completely than they expected.
Such prediction errors, behavioral economists argue, often lead to faulty decisions. A celebrated example describes an assistant professor at a distinguished university who agonizes for years about whether he will be promoted. Ultimately, his department turns him down. As anticipated, he�s abjectly miserable � but only for a few months. The next year, he�s settled in a new position at a less selective university, and by all available measures is as happy as he�s ever been.
The ostensible lesson is that if this professor had been acquainted with the relevant evidence, he�d have known that it didn�t make sense to fret about his promotion in the first place � that he would have been happier if he hadn�t. But that�s almost surely the wrong lesson, because failing to fret probably would have made him even less likely to get the promotion. And promotions often matter in ways that have little impact on day-to-day levels of happiness.
Paradoxically, our prediction errors often lead us to choices that are wisest in hindsight. In such cases, evolutionary biology often provides a clearer guide than cognitive psychology for thinking about why people behave as they do.
According to Charles Darwin, the motivational structures within the human brain were forged by natural selection over millions of years. In his framework, the brain has evolved not to make us happy, but to motivate actions that help push our DNA into the next round. Much of the time, in fact, the brain accomplishes that by making us unhappy. Anxiety, hunger, fatigue, loneliness, thirst, anger and fear spur action to meet the competitive challenges we face.
As the late economist Tibor Scitovsky said in �The Joyless Economy,� pleasure is an inherently fleeting emotion, one we experience while escaping from emotionally aversive states. In other words, pleasure is the carrot that provokes us to extricate ourselves from such states, but it almost always fades quickly.
The human brain was formed by relentless competition in the natural world, so it should be no surprise that we adapt quickly to changes in circumstances. Much of life, after all, is graded on the curve. Someone who remained permanently elated about her first promotion, for example, might find it hard to muster the drive to compete for her next one.
Emotional pain is fleeting, too. Behavioral economists often note that while people who become physically paralyzed experience the expected emotional devastation immediately after their accidents, they generally bounce back surprisingly quickly. Within six months, many have a daily mix of moods similar to their pre-accident experience.
This finding is often interpreted to mean that becoming physically disabled isn�t as bad as most people imagine it to be. The evidence, however, strongly argues otherwise. Many paraplegics, for instance, say they�d submit to a mobility-restoring operation even if its mortality risk were 50 percent.
The point is that when misfortune befalls us, it�s not helpful to mope around endlessly. It�s far better, of course, to adapt as quickly as possible and to make the best of the new circumstances. And that�s roughly what a brain forged by the ruthless pressures of natural selection urges us to do.
All of this brings us back to our decisions about how hard we should work � choices that have important implications for the lives we are able to lead.
Most people would love to have a job with interesting, capable colleagues, a high level of autonomy and ample opportunities for creative expression. But only a limited number of such jobs are available � and it�s our fretting that can motivate us to get them.
Within limits, worry about success causes students to study harder to gain admission to better universities. It makes assistant professors work harder to earn tenure. It leads film makers to strive harder to create the perfect scene, and songwriters to dig deeper for the most pleasing melody. In every domain, people who work harder are more likely to succeed professionally, more likely to make a difference.
THE anxiety we feel about whether we�ll succeed is evolution�s way of motivating us. And the evidence is clear that most of us don�t look back on our efforts with regret, even if our daily mix of emotions ultimately doesn�t change.
But evolutionary theory also counsels humility about personal good fortune. As Darwin saw clearly, individual and collective interests don�t always coincide. A good job is an inherently relative concept, and while the person who lands one benefits enormously, her lucky break means that some other equally deserving person didn�t get that job.
When people work harder, income grows. But much of the spending that comes from extra income just raises the bar that defines adequate. So, from society�s perspective, some of the anxiety over who gets what jobs may be excessive after all. But that�s very different from saying that people shouldn�t worry about succeeding.
Robert H. Frank is an economics professor at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University
Your So-Called Education (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15arum.html) By RICHARD ARUM and JOSIPA ROKSA | New York Times
Major Delusions (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15Sharot.html) By TALI SHAROT | New York Times
Personal finance tips for graduates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/personal-finance-tips-for-graduates/2011/05/08/AFYfQf3G_story.html) By Michelle Singletary | The Washington Post
Outlook's Third Annual Spring Cleaning List (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/opinions/outlook/spring-cleaning-2011/) The Washington Post
Five myths about internships (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-interns/2011/05/09/AFbWmT2G_story.html) By Ross Perlin | The Washington Post
When Fear Stifles Initiative (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/jobs/15pre.html) By ROBERT W. GOLDFARB | New York Times
THE late Amos Tversky, a Stanford psychologist and a founding father of behavioral economics, used to say, �My colleagues, they study artificial intelligence; me, I study natural stupidity.�
In recent decades, behavioral economics has been the economics profession�s runaway growth area. Scholars in this field work largely at the intersection of economics and psychology, and much of their attention has focused on systematic biases in people�s judgments and decisions.
They point out, for example, that people are particularly inept at predicting how changes in their life circumstances will affect their happiness. Even when the changes are huge � positive or negative � most people adapt much more quickly and completely than they expected.
Such prediction errors, behavioral economists argue, often lead to faulty decisions. A celebrated example describes an assistant professor at a distinguished university who agonizes for years about whether he will be promoted. Ultimately, his department turns him down. As anticipated, he�s abjectly miserable � but only for a few months. The next year, he�s settled in a new position at a less selective university, and by all available measures is as happy as he�s ever been.
The ostensible lesson is that if this professor had been acquainted with the relevant evidence, he�d have known that it didn�t make sense to fret about his promotion in the first place � that he would have been happier if he hadn�t. But that�s almost surely the wrong lesson, because failing to fret probably would have made him even less likely to get the promotion. And promotions often matter in ways that have little impact on day-to-day levels of happiness.
Paradoxically, our prediction errors often lead us to choices that are wisest in hindsight. In such cases, evolutionary biology often provides a clearer guide than cognitive psychology for thinking about why people behave as they do.
According to Charles Darwin, the motivational structures within the human brain were forged by natural selection over millions of years. In his framework, the brain has evolved not to make us happy, but to motivate actions that help push our DNA into the next round. Much of the time, in fact, the brain accomplishes that by making us unhappy. Anxiety, hunger, fatigue, loneliness, thirst, anger and fear spur action to meet the competitive challenges we face.
As the late economist Tibor Scitovsky said in �The Joyless Economy,� pleasure is an inherently fleeting emotion, one we experience while escaping from emotionally aversive states. In other words, pleasure is the carrot that provokes us to extricate ourselves from such states, but it almost always fades quickly.
The human brain was formed by relentless competition in the natural world, so it should be no surprise that we adapt quickly to changes in circumstances. Much of life, after all, is graded on the curve. Someone who remained permanently elated about her first promotion, for example, might find it hard to muster the drive to compete for her next one.
Emotional pain is fleeting, too. Behavioral economists often note that while people who become physically paralyzed experience the expected emotional devastation immediately after their accidents, they generally bounce back surprisingly quickly. Within six months, many have a daily mix of moods similar to their pre-accident experience.
This finding is often interpreted to mean that becoming physically disabled isn�t as bad as most people imagine it to be. The evidence, however, strongly argues otherwise. Many paraplegics, for instance, say they�d submit to a mobility-restoring operation even if its mortality risk were 50 percent.
The point is that when misfortune befalls us, it�s not helpful to mope around endlessly. It�s far better, of course, to adapt as quickly as possible and to make the best of the new circumstances. And that�s roughly what a brain forged by the ruthless pressures of natural selection urges us to do.
All of this brings us back to our decisions about how hard we should work � choices that have important implications for the lives we are able to lead.
Most people would love to have a job with interesting, capable colleagues, a high level of autonomy and ample opportunities for creative expression. But only a limited number of such jobs are available � and it�s our fretting that can motivate us to get them.
Within limits, worry about success causes students to study harder to gain admission to better universities. It makes assistant professors work harder to earn tenure. It leads film makers to strive harder to create the perfect scene, and songwriters to dig deeper for the most pleasing melody. In every domain, people who work harder are more likely to succeed professionally, more likely to make a difference.
THE anxiety we feel about whether we�ll succeed is evolution�s way of motivating us. And the evidence is clear that most of us don�t look back on our efforts with regret, even if our daily mix of emotions ultimately doesn�t change.
But evolutionary theory also counsels humility about personal good fortune. As Darwin saw clearly, individual and collective interests don�t always coincide. A good job is an inherently relative concept, and while the person who lands one benefits enormously, her lucky break means that some other equally deserving person didn�t get that job.
When people work harder, income grows. But much of the spending that comes from extra income just raises the bar that defines adequate. So, from society�s perspective, some of the anxiety over who gets what jobs may be excessive after all. But that�s very different from saying that people shouldn�t worry about succeeding.
Robert H. Frank is an economics professor at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University
Your So-Called Education (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15arum.html) By RICHARD ARUM and JOSIPA ROKSA | New York Times
Major Delusions (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15Sharot.html) By TALI SHAROT | New York Times
Personal finance tips for graduates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/personal-finance-tips-for-graduates/2011/05/08/AFYfQf3G_story.html) By Michelle Singletary | The Washington Post
Outlook's Third Annual Spring Cleaning List (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/opinions/outlook/spring-cleaning-2011/) The Washington Post
Five myths about internships (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-interns/2011/05/09/AFbWmT2G_story.html) By Ross Perlin | The Washington Post
When Fear Stifles Initiative (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/jobs/15pre.html) By ROBERT W. GOLDFARB | New York Times
more...
tanu_75
07-28 03:09 PM
Atleast republicans listen to Microsoft, Google etc and gives some visa etc...AllObama does is warn about Indians and Chinese growth
Frankly he has a lot more serious problems to worry about than our issues. from the backlog, we are around 0.25 million and you have 300 million people in this country and 10% of them unemployed. So yeah, blame him all you want but any sane politician in his position would do the same.
Let's consider this for example. Imagine you were in India and you had a few 100,000 decently skilled immigrants from some other country, who were waiting for their green card. Now you are the PM and you have to choose your focus between fighting terrorism, fighting inflation, high budget deficits with healthcare costs, high unemployment rate or giving green cards to these 100,000 people. I would think there would be a lot of pissed off countrymen in India who would scream at you when you are ignoring real issues and focussing instead on giving green cards to foreigners especially when you already have a sky high unemployment rate. Wouldn't be a great political strategy, would it? But maybe you would still do it, perhaps if you have a vested interest in getting it done.
Still, next year you can bet that he'll do something on immigration since the states have started legislating on their own now and they can't afford this to continue.
Frankly he has a lot more serious problems to worry about than our issues. from the backlog, we are around 0.25 million and you have 300 million people in this country and 10% of them unemployed. So yeah, blame him all you want but any sane politician in his position would do the same.
Let's consider this for example. Imagine you were in India and you had a few 100,000 decently skilled immigrants from some other country, who were waiting for their green card. Now you are the PM and you have to choose your focus between fighting terrorism, fighting inflation, high budget deficits with healthcare costs, high unemployment rate or giving green cards to these 100,000 people. I would think there would be a lot of pissed off countrymen in India who would scream at you when you are ignoring real issues and focussing instead on giving green cards to foreigners especially when you already have a sky high unemployment rate. Wouldn't be a great political strategy, would it? But maybe you would still do it, perhaps if you have a vested interest in getting it done.
Still, next year you can bet that he'll do something on immigration since the states have started legislating on their own now and they can't afford this to continue.
hair Jennifer Lopez
another one
09-29 05:14 PM
I have been here since 1997. An Obama win may just restore my faith (which was severely damaged after Bush relection) in the average intelligence of a voter.
I know that chances of passing of a bill favorable to skilled immigrants are greater with Republicans, but there are other issues far more important to me. For e.g. with a Republican win, the chances of "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent abroad) increase tremendously. I do not want that to be funded through my tax money. Neither do i want my child to read about "creationism" in school (despite paying for all that private school fees!). These issues are more important to me than tax cuts or getting a green card sooner. just my two thoughts...
I am an Electrical Engineer by training and I manage and lead an R&D group at an American semiconductor company. We design computer-chips that enable about 50% of the world cellular phones.
I will definitely be moving out of the US when the Dems get elected as I do not think that they capable of making the politically tough but necessary decisions on immigration. They are beholden to too many populist groups and will make the immigration issue a class-based fight. I've had enough of paying taxes, creating $$ & jobs for US-based companies - I've been waiting since 1999.
I am of course thankful to the US taxpayer who has paid for my graduate school tuition and board, to the US-companies that have given me opportunities that are equal to native-born Americans, and to my American friends for their friendship and hospitality. But prudence demands that I hedge my bets and I will have to relocate to friendlier shores.
Thought I'd share my experience. Good Luck to All.
I know that chances of passing of a bill favorable to skilled immigrants are greater with Republicans, but there are other issues far more important to me. For e.g. with a Republican win, the chances of "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent abroad) increase tremendously. I do not want that to be funded through my tax money. Neither do i want my child to read about "creationism" in school (despite paying for all that private school fees!). These issues are more important to me than tax cuts or getting a green card sooner. just my two thoughts...
I am an Electrical Engineer by training and I manage and lead an R&D group at an American semiconductor company. We design computer-chips that enable about 50% of the world cellular phones.
I will definitely be moving out of the US when the Dems get elected as I do not think that they capable of making the politically tough but necessary decisions on immigration. They are beholden to too many populist groups and will make the immigration issue a class-based fight. I've had enough of paying taxes, creating $$ & jobs for US-based companies - I've been waiting since 1999.
I am of course thankful to the US taxpayer who has paid for my graduate school tuition and board, to the US-companies that have given me opportunities that are equal to native-born Americans, and to my American friends for their friendship and hospitality. But prudence demands that I hedge my bets and I will have to relocate to friendlier shores.
Thought I'd share my experience. Good Luck to All.
more...
unitednations
03-24 12:34 PM
face it as long as the economy is tanking this is going to be an ongoing debate. Everything goes thorugh stages of high and low and we are now expereincing the lows of having the h1b's.
Sledge While your points are valid, remember folks do not choose consulting (nor do students) as a first choice but I have friends who were employed without any issues directly with client companies who in the midst of recession decide to fire everyone. What are you options if your GC is denied because the company declared bankruptcy? How do you justify to yourself staying with the employer when they files you under Eb3 category when you a master's degree holder from one of the 10 best universities in the US? What are the employee choices here, just pack up and leave? leave houses, friends and people you stayed with many years.
You think they haven't searched for full time positions with other companies only to be turned back? or worse case restart the entire GC process and forgo the 6+ years?
And the experiences I am relating are from the 2001 recession. I have already seen history repeat itself now but my more fear is that tomorrow USCIS will unfortunately hit the person who followed all the rules After all how is the USCIS knowing which are the good companies and which are bad? These very things are happening and very much can happen to you as well. Do not sit on a high perch and think it will not trickle down to me
That is one thing I have noticed of this divide between non consulting and consulting jobs.
Reality is that people either came on f-1 or they came on h-1 through staffing company.
Permanent jobs are the least safe from immigration point of view. As soon as there is a downturn; they will cut your job unmercilessly; doesn't matter which stage of the greencard you are in. You have absolutely no flexibility whatsoever (eb2 versus eb3); when or if they are going to start the greencard process. In fact companies such as these are the ones who generally won't give you any details of labor or 140.
Many of the peple who are in 8 or 9 year h-1b painfully learned this lesson. They generally started at staffing company; got enticed by permanent job; got stuck in labor processing; got laid off; jumped back to staffing company; chased labor substitution; got 140 denied; jumped to another company and started again.
Many of the people I discussed with who have been here for a long time on h-1b were continually re-starting their greencard for all these issues.
I remember seeing a posting by another member that stated people from india were more susceptible to being out of status or having applications denied because of the long wait to get the greencard. The longer it goes; the bigger chane of something going wrong.
People from other countries don't have such issues. I know one person from Uzbekistan who was on OPT and filed h-1b quota case in April 2007; at the same time company filed labor for him. He got greencard approved before the h-1b even got adjudicated.
One of the issues of stafffing companies is that it is usually run by another person who was a non immigrant at one point themselves so they did not revoke h-1b's and were very flexible with their employees (that flexibility made them skirt h-1b rules). However, now that flexibility is gone as USCIS has gone through zero tolerance.
The way USCIS/DOL/CONSULATES are behaving is making it very difficult for even the traditional companies to pursue or even keep non immigrants. Right now with the layoffs, many people from the traditional companies are approaching the staffing companies to do h-1b's. However, the staffing companies are not doing them because they are starting to follow the rules as close as they can. If they don't have a job for you then they are not going to file (no more speculative employment).
Sledge While your points are valid, remember folks do not choose consulting (nor do students) as a first choice but I have friends who were employed without any issues directly with client companies who in the midst of recession decide to fire everyone. What are you options if your GC is denied because the company declared bankruptcy? How do you justify to yourself staying with the employer when they files you under Eb3 category when you a master's degree holder from one of the 10 best universities in the US? What are the employee choices here, just pack up and leave? leave houses, friends and people you stayed with many years.
You think they haven't searched for full time positions with other companies only to be turned back? or worse case restart the entire GC process and forgo the 6+ years?
And the experiences I am relating are from the 2001 recession. I have already seen history repeat itself now but my more fear is that tomorrow USCIS will unfortunately hit the person who followed all the rules After all how is the USCIS knowing which are the good companies and which are bad? These very things are happening and very much can happen to you as well. Do not sit on a high perch and think it will not trickle down to me
That is one thing I have noticed of this divide between non consulting and consulting jobs.
Reality is that people either came on f-1 or they came on h-1 through staffing company.
Permanent jobs are the least safe from immigration point of view. As soon as there is a downturn; they will cut your job unmercilessly; doesn't matter which stage of the greencard you are in. You have absolutely no flexibility whatsoever (eb2 versus eb3); when or if they are going to start the greencard process. In fact companies such as these are the ones who generally won't give you any details of labor or 140.
Many of the peple who are in 8 or 9 year h-1b painfully learned this lesson. They generally started at staffing company; got enticed by permanent job; got stuck in labor processing; got laid off; jumped back to staffing company; chased labor substitution; got 140 denied; jumped to another company and started again.
Many of the people I discussed with who have been here for a long time on h-1b were continually re-starting their greencard for all these issues.
I remember seeing a posting by another member that stated people from india were more susceptible to being out of status or having applications denied because of the long wait to get the greencard. The longer it goes; the bigger chane of something going wrong.
People from other countries don't have such issues. I know one person from Uzbekistan who was on OPT and filed h-1b quota case in April 2007; at the same time company filed labor for him. He got greencard approved before the h-1b even got adjudicated.
One of the issues of stafffing companies is that it is usually run by another person who was a non immigrant at one point themselves so they did not revoke h-1b's and were very flexible with their employees (that flexibility made them skirt h-1b rules). However, now that flexibility is gone as USCIS has gone through zero tolerance.
The way USCIS/DOL/CONSULATES are behaving is making it very difficult for even the traditional companies to pursue or even keep non immigrants. Right now with the layoffs, many people from the traditional companies are approaching the staffing companies to do h-1b's. However, the staffing companies are not doing them because they are starting to follow the rules as close as they can. If they don't have a job for you then they are not going to file (no more speculative employment).
hot jennifer lopez hairstyles with
DSJ
05-16 12:08 PM
This is exactly my point. In my view, since have seen both worlds, each one has their own adv and disadv. But eliminating body shopping does not solve todays H1-B shortage issue. They can do many things like limiting no's of H1B per company, release H1B quota quarterly like greencard.
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.
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.
more...
house jennifer lopez hairstyles with
DallasBlue
07-08 09:48 PM
The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Very insightful.
So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Very insightful.
So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.
tattoo Jennifer Lopez Red Carpet
Macaca
12-14 11:40 AM
Plan B For Pelosi And Reid (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/congressional_democrats_need_n.html) By E. J. Dionne | Washington Post, December 14, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats need a Plan B.
Republicans chortle as they block Democratic initiatives -- and accuse the majority of being unable to govern. Rank-and-filers are furious their leaders can't end the Iraq War. President Bush sits back and vetoes at will.
Worse, Democrats are starting to blame each other, with those in the House wondering why their Senate colleagues don't force Republicans to engage in grueling, old-fashioned filibusters. Instead, the GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 votes. Senators defend themselves by saying that their House colleagues don't understand how the august "upper" chamber works these days.
If Bush's strategy is to drag Congress down to his low level of public esteem, he is succeeding brilliantly. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released earlier this week found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of his job -- and just 32 percent felt positively about Congress' performance. The only comfort for Democrats: The public dislikes Republicans in Congress (32 percent approval) even more than it dislikes congressional Democrats (40 percent approval).
The Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president.
In an ideal world, Democrats would pass a lot of legislation that Bush would either have to sign or veto. The president would have to take responsibility for his choices. The House has passed many bills, but the Republican minority has enormous power in the Senate to keep the legislation from ever getting to the president's desk. This creates the impression that action is being stalled through some vague and nefarious congressional "process."
Not only can a minority block action in the Senate, but the Democrats' nominal one-vote majority is frequently not a majority at all. A few maverick Democrats often defect, and the party runs short-handed when Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama are off running for president.
And Bush is learning that even when bills reach his desk, he can veto them with near impunity. On Wednesday, Bush issued his second veto of a bill to extend coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to 10 million kids. Democrats have the high ground on the issue and more than two-thirds support in the Senate, but the bill lacks a veto-proof House majority.
After Bush vetoed the first version of the SCHIP bill, Democrats changed it slightly to make it more attractive to Republicans. And the new version passed both houses too. When Bush vetoed the SCHIP measure again, almost nobody paid attention. The Washington Post ran a three-paragraph story on the corner of page A18; The New York Times ran a longer story -- on page A29.
Democrats can't even get credit for doing the right thing. If Congress and Bush don't act, the alternative minimum tax -- originally designed to affect only Americans with very high incomes -- will raise taxes on about 20 million middle- and upper-middle-class people for whom it was never intended.
Democrats want to protect those taxpayers, but also keep their pay-as-you-go promise to offset new spending or tax cuts with tax increases or program cuts elsewhere. They would finance AMT relief with $50 billion in new taxes on the very wealthiest Americans or corporations. The Republicans say no, just pass the AMT fix.
Here's a guarantee: If the Democrats fail to pass AMT relief, they will be blamed for raising taxes on the middle class. If they pass it without the tax increase, deficit hawks will accuse them of selling out.
What's the alternative to the internecine Democratic finger-pointing of the sort that made the front page of Thursday's Washington Post? The party's congressional leaders need to do whatever they must to put this year behind them. Then they need to stop whining. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should put aside any ill feelings and use the Christmas break to come up with a joint program for 2008.
They could start with the best ideas from their presidential candidates in areas such as health care, education, cures for the ailing economy and poverty-reduction. Agree to bring the same bills to a vote in both houses. Try one more time to change the direction of Iraq policy. If Bush and the Republicans block their efforts, bring all these issues into the campaign. Let the voters break the gridlock.
If Democrats don't make the 2008 election about the Do-Nothing Republicans, the GOP has its own ideas about whom to hold responsible for Washington's paralysis. And if House and Senate Democrats waste their time attacking each other, they will deserve any blame they get next fall.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats need a Plan B.
Republicans chortle as they block Democratic initiatives -- and accuse the majority of being unable to govern. Rank-and-filers are furious their leaders can't end the Iraq War. President Bush sits back and vetoes at will.
Worse, Democrats are starting to blame each other, with those in the House wondering why their Senate colleagues don't force Republicans to engage in grueling, old-fashioned filibusters. Instead, the GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 votes. Senators defend themselves by saying that their House colleagues don't understand how the august "upper" chamber works these days.
If Bush's strategy is to drag Congress down to his low level of public esteem, he is succeeding brilliantly. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released earlier this week found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of his job -- and just 32 percent felt positively about Congress' performance. The only comfort for Democrats: The public dislikes Republicans in Congress (32 percent approval) even more than it dislikes congressional Democrats (40 percent approval).
The Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president.
In an ideal world, Democrats would pass a lot of legislation that Bush would either have to sign or veto. The president would have to take responsibility for his choices. The House has passed many bills, but the Republican minority has enormous power in the Senate to keep the legislation from ever getting to the president's desk. This creates the impression that action is being stalled through some vague and nefarious congressional "process."
Not only can a minority block action in the Senate, but the Democrats' nominal one-vote majority is frequently not a majority at all. A few maverick Democrats often defect, and the party runs short-handed when Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama are off running for president.
And Bush is learning that even when bills reach his desk, he can veto them with near impunity. On Wednesday, Bush issued his second veto of a bill to extend coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to 10 million kids. Democrats have the high ground on the issue and more than two-thirds support in the Senate, but the bill lacks a veto-proof House majority.
After Bush vetoed the first version of the SCHIP bill, Democrats changed it slightly to make it more attractive to Republicans. And the new version passed both houses too. When Bush vetoed the SCHIP measure again, almost nobody paid attention. The Washington Post ran a three-paragraph story on the corner of page A18; The New York Times ran a longer story -- on page A29.
Democrats can't even get credit for doing the right thing. If Congress and Bush don't act, the alternative minimum tax -- originally designed to affect only Americans with very high incomes -- will raise taxes on about 20 million middle- and upper-middle-class people for whom it was never intended.
Democrats want to protect those taxpayers, but also keep their pay-as-you-go promise to offset new spending or tax cuts with tax increases or program cuts elsewhere. They would finance AMT relief with $50 billion in new taxes on the very wealthiest Americans or corporations. The Republicans say no, just pass the AMT fix.
Here's a guarantee: If the Democrats fail to pass AMT relief, they will be blamed for raising taxes on the middle class. If they pass it without the tax increase, deficit hawks will accuse them of selling out.
What's the alternative to the internecine Democratic finger-pointing of the sort that made the front page of Thursday's Washington Post? The party's congressional leaders need to do whatever they must to put this year behind them. Then they need to stop whining. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should put aside any ill feelings and use the Christmas break to come up with a joint program for 2008.
They could start with the best ideas from their presidential candidates in areas such as health care, education, cures for the ailing economy and poverty-reduction. Agree to bring the same bills to a vote in both houses. Try one more time to change the direction of Iraq policy. If Bush and the Republicans block their efforts, bring all these issues into the campaign. Let the voters break the gridlock.
If Democrats don't make the 2008 election about the Do-Nothing Republicans, the GOP has its own ideas about whom to hold responsible for Washington's paralysis. And if House and Senate Democrats waste their time attacking each other, they will deserve any blame they get next fall.
more...
pictures Jennifer Lopez at Celebrity
nojoke
04-14 04:15 PM
Exactly. now before you jump ..let me say that this may not be applicable to you. but most of the people that I know of, who have very young kids ( 1 - 5/6 year olds) ..buying a house was a wrong decision. (and common sense says the same thing). Because they bought the house - either they had to slog extra or take up 2 jobs and/or spouse has to work. some of them had a baby sitter ..who would put the kid in front of the TV all day. some of the kids are/were at home all day with their mother (but no friends) and hence they were lonely. (wife does not know how to drive or only one car) ..some of the luckier ones were the ones who could afford to put them in all day daycare
(but in this case ..kid hardly knows his parents well).
in my humble opinion ..the best case is where a mother takes care of the son as long as possible and at the same time the kid plays with other kids of same age ..(there are definitely many exceptions) ...and most (neutral) people would say that those who rent would be more likely to have this best case.
Exactly. This argument of buying house for kids is no argument. You can argue on either side. The problem is when NKR made a statement that it is big deal to not buy a house because your kid will ask "can you give back my childhood?". As if a 7 year old will regret not owning a house. The child will regret not owning a playstation3, eat chocalates all the time, play all time. We all know what we wanted when we were kids.;)
(but in this case ..kid hardly knows his parents well).
in my humble opinion ..the best case is where a mother takes care of the son as long as possible and at the same time the kid plays with other kids of same age ..(there are definitely many exceptions) ...and most (neutral) people would say that those who rent would be more likely to have this best case.
Exactly. This argument of buying house for kids is no argument. You can argue on either side. The problem is when NKR made a statement that it is big deal to not buy a house because your kid will ask "can you give back my childhood?". As if a 7 year old will regret not owning a house. The child will regret not owning a playstation3, eat chocalates all the time, play all time. We all know what we wanted when we were kids.;)
dresses Jennifer Lopez Hairstyles
NKR
08-05 04:21 PM
I am not taking sides here, but it is not a question of "smarter". I have a simple question. Do years spent doing MS/PhD have no value? They count for nothing in PD. On the other hand a person with a BS accumulates 5 years in the same time and ports. Now he/she is a full 5 years ahead of the one that pursued the education route. Fair?
I don't think that porting is all fair. Just MHO that the 5 year experience rule negates all efforts in getting a masters degree/PhD and puts those people at a huge disadvantage. The system tried to make up for that by creating preference categories. Not that they work perfectly of course as many of you have pointed out.
I think it is all subjective. You ask �Do years spent doing MS/Phd have no value?�. A person who has 5+ years experience will ask �Do years spent working have no value?�.
Just think of a scenario where a person who right after finishing a degree gets into masters because he had money and another decides to work for whatever reason (he could not afford could be one reason), The former finishes his MS and applies GC right away, how can the latter person who waits for an extra three years and apply get ahead of the former?.
Now you might say � No dude, I did not have money, I worked for 2 years and then got into MS�, like I said it is all subjective. You pick a case that augurs well for your argument and I chose a scenario to counter yours.
I think it is fair to equate 5 years of work experience (remember, to qualify for EB2 you need to have PROGRESSIVE work experience, you need to show some progress/advancement in that 5 years) with 2+ years of MS. I had more than 5 years of experience and I applied in EB2 and now I am doing my masters. Will I withdraw my GC application and wait to apply after I do my masters?. Hell no.
I don't think that porting is all fair. Just MHO that the 5 year experience rule negates all efforts in getting a masters degree/PhD and puts those people at a huge disadvantage. The system tried to make up for that by creating preference categories. Not that they work perfectly of course as many of you have pointed out.
I think it is all subjective. You ask �Do years spent doing MS/Phd have no value?�. A person who has 5+ years experience will ask �Do years spent working have no value?�.
Just think of a scenario where a person who right after finishing a degree gets into masters because he had money and another decides to work for whatever reason (he could not afford could be one reason), The former finishes his MS and applies GC right away, how can the latter person who waits for an extra three years and apply get ahead of the former?.
Now you might say � No dude, I did not have money, I worked for 2 years and then got into MS�, like I said it is all subjective. You pick a case that augurs well for your argument and I chose a scenario to counter yours.
I think it is fair to equate 5 years of work experience (remember, to qualify for EB2 you need to have PROGRESSIVE work experience, you need to show some progress/advancement in that 5 years) with 2+ years of MS. I had more than 5 years of experience and I applied in EB2 and now I am doing my masters. Will I withdraw my GC application and wait to apply after I do my masters?. Hell no.
more...
makeup jennifer lopez haircut
Macaca
07-28 07:43 AM
Democratic Leaders Agree on Overhaul of Lobbying (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28lobby.html?hp) By CARL HULSE New York Times, July 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
girlfriend Jennifer Aniston straight hair
.jpg "CELEB HAIRSTYLE Hayden")
reddog
01-06 12:49 PM
Now the killing has gone mad. Apart from killing the innocent civilians, crazy war mongers started bombing schools and killing innocent school kids. Today two schools were bombed and more than 40 children have been massacred.
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
And look at what India is going thru. Each and every year, bomb blasts in multiple cities.
There are hundreds of polls taken in Indian cities and a majority of the people living in cities say that they are terrified. They are constantly living under the fear of the next terrorist attack.
Indians support a military action against Pakistan as they know that the state of Pakistan is involved in these terrorist activities.
And even if the state not knowing about these people does not relieve them from accountability.
So how different would it be if India initiates a military strike on Pakistan, will they guarantee that not a single innocent live will be taken?
Israelis feel much safer in their country, even after being surrounded by enemies from all side.
I am not justifying anything, I am just saying that Israel does not love to go and kill innocent people, they are not the Stalin or the Nazi clansmen.
Or are you saying that they love killing people?
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
And look at what India is going thru. Each and every year, bomb blasts in multiple cities.
There are hundreds of polls taken in Indian cities and a majority of the people living in cities say that they are terrified. They are constantly living under the fear of the next terrorist attack.
Indians support a military action against Pakistan as they know that the state of Pakistan is involved in these terrorist activities.
And even if the state not knowing about these people does not relieve them from accountability.
So how different would it be if India initiates a military strike on Pakistan, will they guarantee that not a single innocent live will be taken?
Israelis feel much safer in their country, even after being surrounded by enemies from all side.
I am not justifying anything, I am just saying that Israel does not love to go and kill innocent people, they are not the Stalin or the Nazi clansmen.
Or are you saying that they love killing people?
hairstyles jennifer lopez hairstyles 2011
krishna.ahd
01-06 04:14 PM
Didn't Narendra Modi followed the footstep of Isreali counterparts by killing innocents in Gujarat?
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
Modi is elected CM by people of Gujarat , also third time in a row, so you know now what people of Gujarat wants.
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
Modi is elected CM by people of Gujarat , also third time in a row, so you know now what people of Gujarat wants.
NKR
08-05 08:28 AM
What i mean is: Porting should not be an option based on the LENGTH OF WAITING TIME in EB3 status. That is what it is most commonly used for, thus causing a serious disadvantage to EB2 filers (who did not port).
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
I am EB2 and I do not support this idea. Just imagine, someone could have applied in EB3 though he was qualified for EB2 because he was ill advised by his lawyers or employers. Why should he be punished TWICE for no fault of his?.
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
I am EB2 and I do not support this idea. Just imagine, someone could have applied in EB3 though he was qualified for EB2 because he was ill advised by his lawyers or employers. Why should he be punished TWICE for no fault of his?.
unitednations
08-02 11:54 PM
AC21 tells that one can leave the job after 6 months of filing I485. But the green card is for future job and if anyone is not working for a company after receiving permanent job then green card can be considered as fraud.
These 2 rules are contraditory in nature.
Some of my friends quit the job after 6 months of I485 but after receiving GC they went back and worked for a few months.
Generally USCIS does not have time and resource to track this. But I think they do randomly. One of my other friend resigned the job and he was doing business. He got interview and he postponed the interview to get a job and letter from his previous Company.
If anyone is happy in their job can stay there till receiving gc. In case of layoffs there is no choice one need to invoke. Even if need to resign the Company it is better try to maintain good relationship. After 8 years GC is denied that will place in tough situation though it will happen for a few cases
I refer back to my earlier posting where I said I just read the memos and the law and thought this stuff was pretty simple. USCIS quite often goes above and beyond (tax returns rfe's, pictures of company inside/outside).
I'll give you some examples of what they have done of which I have intimate knowledge of:
1) Questioned company on I-140 why they had more 140's pending/approved then the number of people on payroll. Asked for all 140 info., h1, L1 and even the people who got employment base greencard and asked company to justify where they are
2) Department of state for visa stamping; if they don't trust client letter; they refer the case to department of state fraud unit in Kentucky. They will then contact signer of letter and HR of company to verify that person signed the letter
3) Department of labor is on a real war path of checking companies compliance with h-1b based on referrals made by department of state. I can tell you that there is no way any company who is h-1b dependent can be 100% compliant with h-1b. Patni got fined $3.5 million for violations.
4) Department of labor made a home visit to an HR person who was no longer working with the company to ask and verify her signatue on labor applications in a fast processing state when they weren't registered to do business there
5) Department of labor verifying that people were paid the greencard wage upon greencard approval (this was in conjunction with h-1b investigation). I can tell you that some states have very high eb2 wages and people aren't even close to the labor number; companies do it anyways to keep you happy but do they run that number once you do get the greencard?
6) h-1b rfe's from california service center. when quota finished in one day; there was some rumors from california service center that they would be treating h-1b transfers/quota cases very harshly in that companies were engaging in speculative employment. These days if you are involved in software and you file an h-1b transfer or even extension with california service center; you have a very good chance of getting a four page rfe. One of the things they have started to ask for is a table of people whom h-1b's have been filed for. Table has to list name, social security number, receipt number, date of birth, joining date, termination date, no show, future joining date. California service center then intertwines this information with company unemployment compensation reports. I have actually seen 3 recent denials where USCIS examined the unemployment compensation reports and looked at people who may have been paid a lower wage and pulled those people's h-1b files and denied the present case saying they can't trust the company to comply with the h-1b, lca.
----------------------------------------------------------
These days; uscis/dol/dos really means business. I refer you to earlier posting of how evertime a company files a case; it gives uscis a chance to go through entire immigration history of a company. They have the resources and tools.
These 2 rules are contraditory in nature.
Some of my friends quit the job after 6 months of I485 but after receiving GC they went back and worked for a few months.
Generally USCIS does not have time and resource to track this. But I think they do randomly. One of my other friend resigned the job and he was doing business. He got interview and he postponed the interview to get a job and letter from his previous Company.
If anyone is happy in their job can stay there till receiving gc. In case of layoffs there is no choice one need to invoke. Even if need to resign the Company it is better try to maintain good relationship. After 8 years GC is denied that will place in tough situation though it will happen for a few cases
I refer back to my earlier posting where I said I just read the memos and the law and thought this stuff was pretty simple. USCIS quite often goes above and beyond (tax returns rfe's, pictures of company inside/outside).
I'll give you some examples of what they have done of which I have intimate knowledge of:
1) Questioned company on I-140 why they had more 140's pending/approved then the number of people on payroll. Asked for all 140 info., h1, L1 and even the people who got employment base greencard and asked company to justify where they are
2) Department of state for visa stamping; if they don't trust client letter; they refer the case to department of state fraud unit in Kentucky. They will then contact signer of letter and HR of company to verify that person signed the letter
3) Department of labor is on a real war path of checking companies compliance with h-1b based on referrals made by department of state. I can tell you that there is no way any company who is h-1b dependent can be 100% compliant with h-1b. Patni got fined $3.5 million for violations.
4) Department of labor made a home visit to an HR person who was no longer working with the company to ask and verify her signatue on labor applications in a fast processing state when they weren't registered to do business there
5) Department of labor verifying that people were paid the greencard wage upon greencard approval (this was in conjunction with h-1b investigation). I can tell you that some states have very high eb2 wages and people aren't even close to the labor number; companies do it anyways to keep you happy but do they run that number once you do get the greencard?
6) h-1b rfe's from california service center. when quota finished in one day; there was some rumors from california service center that they would be treating h-1b transfers/quota cases very harshly in that companies were engaging in speculative employment. These days if you are involved in software and you file an h-1b transfer or even extension with california service center; you have a very good chance of getting a four page rfe. One of the things they have started to ask for is a table of people whom h-1b's have been filed for. Table has to list name, social security number, receipt number, date of birth, joining date, termination date, no show, future joining date. California service center then intertwines this information with company unemployment compensation reports. I have actually seen 3 recent denials where USCIS examined the unemployment compensation reports and looked at people who may have been paid a lower wage and pulled those people's h-1b files and denied the present case saying they can't trust the company to comply with the h-1b, lca.
----------------------------------------------------------
These days; uscis/dol/dos really means business. I refer you to earlier posting of how evertime a company files a case; it gives uscis a chance to go through entire immigration history of a company. They have the resources and tools.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий