sanjaymk
08-05 05:34 PM
no joke list is complete without little johnny's joke..here is one. This is the only decent one that I found which will not get me into trouble here..
Little Johnny's teacher asks, "George Washington not only chopped down his father's Cherry tree, but also admitted doing it. Do any of you know why his father didn't punish him?"
Little Johnny replies, "Because George was the one holding the axe?
Little Johnny's teacher asks, "George Washington not only chopped down his father's Cherry tree, but also admitted doing it. Do any of you know why his father didn't punish him?"
Little Johnny replies, "Because George was the one holding the axe?
wallpaper course layout
unitednations
03-26 08:41 PM
So then lets take an example
1. Company Files H1b from NJ
2. Consultant gets a job in NY or OH or xyz state. Employer files 'amend location' each time. The work and keep on moving like that
3. Time comes up for renewal of H1, if the employer gives the current client's contract in a different location, it will definitely trigger USICS to possibly deny the extension? Since the original H1 petition did not mention this place or since they filed amend its ok?
4. When they file for amend, do they need to give a contract/client letter to justify the amend? If yes then will it trigger an RFE?
According to you anything is possible with USCIS these days.
My original request still stays. I want some advise, I will definitely use an attorney but wanted your opinion on it..
-cheers
kris
Every time you amend the petition; it technically would be another h-1b; when you come up for extension (assuming when you amend the petitoin that you are not requesting for more time); you would be extending the latest h-1b that has been approved. You would have been complying with the terms and conditions of that particular h-1b so you shouldn't have any issues.
California service center when adjudicating person B's H-1b asks for payroll reports of all employees. They will cross reference the h-1b's filed for other employees from the list and if they see even one person who has been paid lower then what their h-1b was filed for then they will deny person b's h-1b. California service center is relying on a case precedent that if a petitioner has not complied with a previous petition (even if it is a different persons petition) then they can't rely on their certification in the instant petition and deny it. Funny thing is that when I looked up that case precedent that they continually site; it is a marriage base case when a person tried to file a second petition. Another example of uscis doing what it wants to do.
Now; I think everyone will start to understand why so many companies are cancelling h-1b's; revoking h-1b's for people on bench and generally not filing many h-1b's in this year quota or filing h-1b transfers for people without projects. I wans't too vocal when some members on the forums were trying to gather support for lifting country quotas; contacting media; etc., because I was well aware of what was going on behind the scenes and we are definitely in a defensive mode right now.
1. Company Files H1b from NJ
2. Consultant gets a job in NY or OH or xyz state. Employer files 'amend location' each time. The work and keep on moving like that
3. Time comes up for renewal of H1, if the employer gives the current client's contract in a different location, it will definitely trigger USICS to possibly deny the extension? Since the original H1 petition did not mention this place or since they filed amend its ok?
4. When they file for amend, do they need to give a contract/client letter to justify the amend? If yes then will it trigger an RFE?
According to you anything is possible with USCIS these days.
My original request still stays. I want some advise, I will definitely use an attorney but wanted your opinion on it..
-cheers
kris
Every time you amend the petition; it technically would be another h-1b; when you come up for extension (assuming when you amend the petitoin that you are not requesting for more time); you would be extending the latest h-1b that has been approved. You would have been complying with the terms and conditions of that particular h-1b so you shouldn't have any issues.
California service center when adjudicating person B's H-1b asks for payroll reports of all employees. They will cross reference the h-1b's filed for other employees from the list and if they see even one person who has been paid lower then what their h-1b was filed for then they will deny person b's h-1b. California service center is relying on a case precedent that if a petitioner has not complied with a previous petition (even if it is a different persons petition) then they can't rely on their certification in the instant petition and deny it. Funny thing is that when I looked up that case precedent that they continually site; it is a marriage base case when a person tried to file a second petition. Another example of uscis doing what it wants to do.
Now; I think everyone will start to understand why so many companies are cancelling h-1b's; revoking h-1b's for people on bench and generally not filing many h-1b's in this year quota or filing h-1b transfers for people without projects. I wans't too vocal when some members on the forums were trying to gather support for lifting country quotas; contacting media; etc., because I was well aware of what was going on behind the scenes and we are definitely in a defensive mode right now.
pitha
04-07 09:18 AM
It�s very easy and hip to blame everything in this world on desi companies but they are not completely to blame here. Consider this scenario. They are two ways to get H1,
1. You are already in US, i.e. converting from F1 to Practical training, Practical training to H1. This is an easy option for companies because you are already in US so they come to campus interviews or fly you to there company headquarters for the interviews.
2. Now what about the people who are outside the US. How are companies going to interview them, screen them and select them, you cannot give a job to somebody outside US by interviewing them on the phone, you cannot fly them to US for interview because it is costly and has visa issues. Desi companies have an advantage here because they are interviewing the people in India and those people are working for them before they file H1. Not just big desi companies like TCS, infosys, wipro etc take this route but even American companies like IBM operating in India are do this. Big companies like Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco do not get first crack at these filings but the labor pool is increased so they do have a chance to hire them when they come to US. People transfer all the time between companies when they are on H1. I know a lot of people who are working in Cisco and Microsoft who came to US on H1 through desi companies but later on accepted full time positions in Microsoft, Cisco and other companies.
Now I am not defending desi companies nor did I ever work for desi company but I am telling you the reality. Even mom and pop desi companies are doing some service by providing a medium for employees and employers through consulting services. The only and biggest gripe I have against desi companies is that they are exploiting the h1 employees by keeping bigger margins on the H1 hourly rate.
Now if you want to reform H1, you can do things like give H1 based on credentials like UK does, you get points based on years of experience, education level (Masters, phd, bachelors etc) and give the people the ability to change jobs at will during the period of H1, that will eliminate a lot of exploitation and make it easier for companies to hire people on h1. This will eleminate some mom and pop desi consulting companies which are the middle men.
The law makers (democrats) who introduced this so called law to reform H1 are actually trying to kill H1 in the name of reform. They don�t have the backbone to come out and say H1 should be abolished but instead they are taking the back door to kill the H1 through these draconian measures.
1. You are already in US, i.e. converting from F1 to Practical training, Practical training to H1. This is an easy option for companies because you are already in US so they come to campus interviews or fly you to there company headquarters for the interviews.
2. Now what about the people who are outside the US. How are companies going to interview them, screen them and select them, you cannot give a job to somebody outside US by interviewing them on the phone, you cannot fly them to US for interview because it is costly and has visa issues. Desi companies have an advantage here because they are interviewing the people in India and those people are working for them before they file H1. Not just big desi companies like TCS, infosys, wipro etc take this route but even American companies like IBM operating in India are do this. Big companies like Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco do not get first crack at these filings but the labor pool is increased so they do have a chance to hire them when they come to US. People transfer all the time between companies when they are on H1. I know a lot of people who are working in Cisco and Microsoft who came to US on H1 through desi companies but later on accepted full time positions in Microsoft, Cisco and other companies.
Now I am not defending desi companies nor did I ever work for desi company but I am telling you the reality. Even mom and pop desi companies are doing some service by providing a medium for employees and employers through consulting services. The only and biggest gripe I have against desi companies is that they are exploiting the h1 employees by keeping bigger margins on the H1 hourly rate.
Now if you want to reform H1, you can do things like give H1 based on credentials like UK does, you get points based on years of experience, education level (Masters, phd, bachelors etc) and give the people the ability to change jobs at will during the period of H1, that will eliminate a lot of exploitation and make it easier for companies to hire people on h1. This will eleminate some mom and pop desi consulting companies which are the middle men.
The law makers (democrats) who introduced this so called law to reform H1 are actually trying to kill H1 in the name of reform. They don�t have the backbone to come out and say H1 should be abolished but instead they are taking the back door to kill the H1 through these draconian measures.
2011 Golf Course Information
gjoe
07-14 02:35 PM
Looks like the situation in this thread is going to get from bad to worse.
more...
EndlessWait
07-14 08:14 PM
Is IV endorsing this? Why immigrationvoice name is there in the bottom signature?
EB classification is designed for a purpose giving priority for highly educated and experienced positions. So it is supposed to be unfair.
the spill over from EB1 should go equally to Eb2 and Eb3..can we work on getting this message across.
EB classification is designed for a purpose giving priority for highly educated and experienced positions. So it is supposed to be unfair.
the spill over from EB1 should go equally to Eb2 and Eb3..can we work on getting this message across.
NKR
01-06 04:12 PM
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
What Gandhi did was right in 1947. Post late 80s, the same Gandhigiri by Indian leaders is not working now. When we are asking Pakistan to reign in terrorism and hand over terrorists, they are laughing at us. Tell me Mr Refugee new, what is your solution to this?.. Note that I am not talking in favor of Modi or anyone here but I hope better sense prevails with our Neighbor.
Recently during Diwali celebration, one boy fired a rocket and it killed more than six people in Tamil Nadu. Offcourse this rocket was made in Sivakasi and it was an accident. It was a fire cracker. A simple fire cracker can make big accidents like this.
But whole world is crying that Hamas fired 7000 rockets and killed innocent civilians and Isrealis are defending thier nation by killing thousands. What a crap man.
Hiding behind Civilian, hiding behind school kids, hiding in hospitals - Full of bullshit lies told by jewish owned medias like CNN and Fox. Have you ever heard from any moderate palestinians about thier plight? This is what those media feed us.
Infact Isreal blocked medias including CNN from entering Gaza. Why? They don't want the world to watch their attrocities. Simple.
I neither support Hamas nor justify their action. My point is, one nation is freely killing civilians and school kids, bombard schools, infrastructer, bomb goverment and civilian buildings, destroy roads and bridges, hospitals and destroying everything including their livelyhood.
Its so pathetic and funny to see the world asking Hamas to stop firing and at the same time encouraging other side to kill more and more.
What is happening in Palestine is bad, so was what happened in Gujarat post Godhra, what is sad is such things COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED if only Hamas stuck to governance and people from some community in Godhra had not got brainwashed by the neighbor.
Human suffering is the same everywhere, we need to go behind the suffering and find out who the real culprits are. All the war lords, drug smugglers, dons, some extent army, intelligence and sponsorers of terrorism are the real culprits/benefactors, Did you know that one of the Hamas leader got killed along with his 4 wives and many children, if he is a terrorist he shouldn’t be living with his family, a terrorist has no family and no religion. What is unfortunate is that in this ill conceived game, innocents, women and children, irrespective of religion and nationalities are getting killed…
When the world is asking Pakistan to reign in terrorism, Pakistan laughed at the world. Now, even if the whole world ask Israel to stop killing, why would they listen?.
What Gandhi did was right in 1947. Post late 80s, the same Gandhigiri by Indian leaders is not working now. When we are asking Pakistan to reign in terrorism and hand over terrorists, they are laughing at us. Tell me Mr Refugee new, what is your solution to this?.. Note that I am not talking in favor of Modi or anyone here but I hope better sense prevails with our Neighbor.
Recently during Diwali celebration, one boy fired a rocket and it killed more than six people in Tamil Nadu. Offcourse this rocket was made in Sivakasi and it was an accident. It was a fire cracker. A simple fire cracker can make big accidents like this.
But whole world is crying that Hamas fired 7000 rockets and killed innocent civilians and Isrealis are defending thier nation by killing thousands. What a crap man.
Hiding behind Civilian, hiding behind school kids, hiding in hospitals - Full of bullshit lies told by jewish owned medias like CNN and Fox. Have you ever heard from any moderate palestinians about thier plight? This is what those media feed us.
Infact Isreal blocked medias including CNN from entering Gaza. Why? They don't want the world to watch their attrocities. Simple.
I neither support Hamas nor justify their action. My point is, one nation is freely killing civilians and school kids, bombard schools, infrastructer, bomb goverment and civilian buildings, destroy roads and bridges, hospitals and destroying everything including their livelyhood.
Its so pathetic and funny to see the world asking Hamas to stop firing and at the same time encouraging other side to kill more and more.
What is happening in Palestine is bad, so was what happened in Gujarat post Godhra, what is sad is such things COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED if only Hamas stuck to governance and people from some community in Godhra had not got brainwashed by the neighbor.
Human suffering is the same everywhere, we need to go behind the suffering and find out who the real culprits are. All the war lords, drug smugglers, dons, some extent army, intelligence and sponsorers of terrorism are the real culprits/benefactors, Did you know that one of the Hamas leader got killed along with his 4 wives and many children, if he is a terrorist he shouldn’t be living with his family, a terrorist has no family and no religion. What is unfortunate is that in this ill conceived game, innocents, women and children, irrespective of religion and nationalities are getting killed…
When the world is asking Pakistan to reign in terrorism, Pakistan laughed at the world. Now, even if the whole world ask Israel to stop killing, why would they listen?.
more...
lfwf
08-06 02:54 PM
OP is long gone. Your post is full of big brave words and no substance. If you want to have a discussion and demonstrate your "intellect", please make some rational arguments and back them up. There is no lawsuit discussion here, just a debate on the merits of BS+5 PD porting
NKR,
When you give reds, learn to read the whole post. I pointed out that since Op was gone, no one here was really filing a lawsuit but we were debating the issue. The thread may be about anything, so what? The discussion ahd turned to a personalized bashing of anyone that dared file for EB2.
Reading your posts I see that you got a red from someone, guess you decided to lash out in return. Fitting!
NKR,
When you give reds, learn to read the whole post. I pointed out that since Op was gone, no one here was really filing a lawsuit but we were debating the issue. The thread may be about anything, so what? The discussion ahd turned to a personalized bashing of anyone that dared file for EB2.
Reading your posts I see that you got a red from someone, guess you decided to lash out in return. Fitting!
2010 Golf Course Layout
arc
04-14 12:16 PM
In California have anyone explored a Duplex/Triplex market where 2 parties buy a multiplex togather they pay less money, get a good location and good school district. I have heard a lot of success stories, plus duplex is like 2 single family homes with yards/decks etc. 2 friends buy the property togather, you also get usual tax deduction and NO HOA like town homes... (if you pay 300/mo HOA you end up paying 108000 in 30 years). I think owning a multiplex for about 5 years then renting it out and getting a single family home makes a lot of sense for long term...what say!
People who have bought houses are advocating buying one and who are renting are defending their decisions to rent... I think buying a multiplex i.e. 2 single family homes 3/1.5 bath in 450K each in California (sunnyvale/cupertino) makes a lot of sense...don't you think!
People who have bought houses are advocating buying one and who are renting are defending their decisions to rent... I think buying a multiplex i.e. 2 single family homes 3/1.5 bath in 450K each in California (sunnyvale/cupertino) makes a lot of sense...don't you think!
more...
Macaca
12-20 08:47 AM
Resolve To End Hyper-Partisanship (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/resolve_to_end_hyperpartisansh.html) By Mort Kondracke | Roll Call, December 20, 2007
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
hair Palo Cedro golf course layout
waitnwatch
06-01 09:16 AM
jkays
my comment was all tongue in cheek. My only point is that Lou comes off as more conservative than Shaun Hannity and isn't that something.
Even then, in his previous avatar, wasn't Lou licking the boots of the corporates! How come he has gone off in a diametrically opposite direction.
my comment was all tongue in cheek. My only point is that Lou comes off as more conservative than Shaun Hannity and isn't that something.
Even then, in his previous avatar, wasn't Lou licking the boots of the corporates! How come he has gone off in a diametrically opposite direction.
more...
mallu
01-28 02:38 AM
There has never been a mention of the H1b visas approved and those that do not fall under the quota....
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
When the debate is on illegal immigration, the former immigrants and their descendants will chant "We love legal immigrants". When the focus shifts to legal immigration, suddenly they don't want any immigration. Their argument is "If bus is full , we don't need more passengers" . Likewise USA is "full" with former immigrants and their descendants , so don't need more immigration.
If supply is squeezed somehow, the demand will increase. But poor fellows, if businesses can't get qualified numbers , it will accelerate outsourcing.
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
When the debate is on illegal immigration, the former immigrants and their descendants will chant "We love legal immigrants". When the focus shifts to legal immigration, suddenly they don't want any immigration. Their argument is "If bus is full , we don't need more passengers" . Likewise USA is "full" with former immigrants and their descendants , so don't need more immigration.
If supply is squeezed somehow, the demand will increase. But poor fellows, if businesses can't get qualified numbers , it will accelerate outsourcing.
hot Here to see the course layout
xyzgc
12-27 12:25 AM
So what in your opinion is the reason for the state and the government of Pakistan to provoke India, with the risk of starting a war with India that Pakistan cannot win, at a time when the economy is in a very very bad shape and there are multiple insurgencies and regular suicide attacks within Pakistan?
You do have a valid point. Pakis would be insane to indulge in proxy wars at this time - when their pants are around their ankles.
But surely you are well-aware that they have done it in the past and now its all back firing!
The killer bees they nutured are coming back and biting them. And what are they doing to stop them from biting Indians? Nothing!
That is the problem. Which is why Indians need to raid these terrorist camps. Because Paki govt is not doing its job to control the very monster they created.
You do have a valid point. Pakis would be insane to indulge in proxy wars at this time - when their pants are around their ankles.
But surely you are well-aware that they have done it in the past and now its all back firing!
The killer bees they nutured are coming back and biting them. And what are they doing to stop them from biting Indians? Nothing!
That is the problem. Which is why Indians need to raid these terrorist camps. Because Paki govt is not doing its job to control the very monster they created.
more...
house L.E. Kaufman Golf Course
sk2006
06-06 01:31 AM
.. nothing on innovation and technology and more Family based immigrants on welfare and low paid jobs... Do you still think, thing of past holds good now?
I agree.
I agree.
tattoo Little Crow Golf Course Map
dontcareanymore
08-05 12:45 PM
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
W T F is unfair in that ? Why can't some one convert if they are indeed qualified as EB2 ?
How about a thorough investigation in to your case to compare what you do with what host of other EB3s do?
How about to see how long you have been with your employer and how long you intend to stay ?
How about investigate all other GC apps from your employer and compare your job duties to to others
I know you are a looser and just convinced your sweatshop owner to file an EB2 case for you. So don't preach.
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
W T F is unfair in that ? Why can't some one convert if they are indeed qualified as EB2 ?
How about a thorough investigation in to your case to compare what you do with what host of other EB3s do?
How about to see how long you have been with your employer and how long you intend to stay ?
How about investigate all other GC apps from your employer and compare your job duties to to others
I know you are a looser and just convinced your sweatshop owner to file an EB2 case for you. So don't preach.
more...
pictures Course Layout. Top of the Page
485Mbe4001
10-01 05:25 PM
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm
Barack Obama on Immigration
Democratic nomine for President; Junior Senator (IL)
America has nothing to fear from today's immigrants
For all the noise and anger that too often surrounds the immigration debate, America has nothing to fear from today's immigrants. They have come here for the same reason that families have always come here--for the hope that in America, they could build a better life for themselves and their families. Like the waves of immigrants that came before them and the Hispanic Americans whose families have been here for generations, the recent arrival of Latino immigrants will only enrich our country.
Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008
We need comprehensive reform, like McCain used to support
Senator McCain used to offer change on immigration. He was a champion of comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party's nomination, he walked away from that commitment and he's said he wouldn't even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote.
If we are going to solve the challenges we face, you need a President who will pursue genuine solutions day in and day out. And that is my commitment to you.
We need immigration reform that will secure our borders, and punish employers who exploit immigrant labor; reform that finally brings the 12 million people who are here illegally out of the shadows by requiring them to take steps to become legal citizens We must assert our values and reconcile our principles as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. That is a priority I will pursue from my very first day.
Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008
Recognize the humanity of immigrants: Todos somos Americanos
Ultimately, the danger to the American way of life is not that we will be overrun by those who do not look like us or do not yet speak our language. The danger will come if we fail to recognize the humanity of [immigrants]--if we withhold from them the opportunities we take for granted, and create a servant class in our midst.
More broadly, the danger will come if we continue to stand idly by as the gap between Wall Street and Main Street grows, as Washington grows more out of touch, and as America grows more unequal. Because America can only prosper when all Americans prosper--brown, black, white, Asian, and Native American. That's the idea that lies at the heart of my campaign, and that's the idea that will lie at the heart of my presidency. Because we are all Americans. Todos somos Americanos. And in this country, we rise and fall together.
Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008
GovWatch: Anti-immigrants fuel xenophobia, but 45% increase
Barack Obama said at a Palm Beach fundraiser on May 22, "A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year. If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen."
Obama needs to be more careful in his use of statistics. If he is going to blame Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh for "ginning up" hate crimes against Hispanics, he needs solid data to back up his allegation. The hate crimes statistics are wildly inaccurate--and a subsequent modified claim provided by his campaign was also off the mark.
Lou Dobbs of CNN has repeatedly made use of flawed statistics, but there is no excuse for resorting to equally flawed data to attack Dobbs and his ilk. Hate crime offenses against Latinos rose from 529 in 2003 to 770 in 2006, a total increase over three years of about 45% [not even closed to double].
Source: GovWatch on 2008: Washington Post analysis Jun 4, 2008
Encourage every student to learn a second language
Q: Is there any down side to the US becoming a bilingual nation?
A: It is important that everyone learns English and that we have that process of binding ourselves together as a country. Every student should be learning a second language, because when you start getting into a debate about bilingual education, for example, now, I want to make sure that children who are coming out of Spanish-speaking households had the opportunity to learn and are not falling behind. If bilingual education helps them do that, I want to give them the opportunity. But I also want to make sure that English-speaking children are getting foreign languages because this world is becoming more interdependent and part of the process of America's continued leadership in the world is going to be our capacity to communicate across boundaries, across borders, and that's something frankly where we've fallen behind. Foreign languages is one of those areas that I think has been neglected. I want to put more resources into it.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Need to look at different aspects of immigration reform
We need stronger border security. We are cracking down on employers that are taking advantage of undocumented workers because they can't complain if they're not paid a minimum wage and not getting overtime. Worker safety laws are not being observed. We have to make sure that doesn't lead to people with Spanish surnames being discriminated against. We have to require that undocumented workers go to the back of the line, so that they are not getting citizenship before those who have applied legally.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Have border patrolled, surveillance, and deploy technology
Q: Do you think your vote on the border fence or the implementation of it was wrong?
A: The key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier. The Bush administration is not real good at listening. I will reverse that policy. There may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. Having border patrolled, surveillance, deploying effective technology, that's going to be the better approach.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Increasing the legal fees on immigrants is not helping
It is important that we fix the legal immigration system, because right now we've got a backlog that means years for people to apply legally. What's worse is, we keep on increasing the fees, so that if you've got a hard working immigrant family, they've got to hire a lawyer; they've got to pay thousands of dollars in fees. They just can't afford it. It's discriminatory against people who have good character, but don't have the money. We've got to fix that. We have to improve our relationship with Mexico and work with the Mexican government so that their economy is producing jobs on that side of the border. The problem is that we have had an administration that came in promising all sorts of leadership on creating a US-Mexican relationship. Bush dropped the ball. He has been so obsessed with Iraq that we have not seen the kinds of outreach and cooperative work that would ensure that the Mexican economy is working not just for the very wealthy in Mexico, but for all people.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Deporting 12 million people is ridiculous and impractical
The American people want fairness, want justice. They recognize that the idea that you're going to deport 12 million people is ridiculous, that we're not going to be devoting all our law enforcement resources to sending people back. But what they do also want is some order to the process. We're not going to be able to do these things in isolation. We're not going to be able to deal with the 12 million people who are living in the shadows and give them a way of getting out of the shadows if we don't also deal with the problem of this constant influx of undocumented workers. That's why comprehensive reform is so important. Something that we can do immediately that is very important is to pass the Dream Act, which allows children who through no fault of their own are here but have essentially grown up as Americans, allow them the opportunity for higher education. I do not want two classes of citizens in this country. I want everybody to prosper. That's going to be a top priority.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
and so on .....
Barack Obama on Immigration
Democratic nomine for President; Junior Senator (IL)
America has nothing to fear from today's immigrants
For all the noise and anger that too often surrounds the immigration debate, America has nothing to fear from today's immigrants. They have come here for the same reason that families have always come here--for the hope that in America, they could build a better life for themselves and their families. Like the waves of immigrants that came before them and the Hispanic Americans whose families have been here for generations, the recent arrival of Latino immigrants will only enrich our country.
Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008
We need comprehensive reform, like McCain used to support
Senator McCain used to offer change on immigration. He was a champion of comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party's nomination, he walked away from that commitment and he's said he wouldn't even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote.
If we are going to solve the challenges we face, you need a President who will pursue genuine solutions day in and day out. And that is my commitment to you.
We need immigration reform that will secure our borders, and punish employers who exploit immigrant labor; reform that finally brings the 12 million people who are here illegally out of the shadows by requiring them to take steps to become legal citizens We must assert our values and reconcile our principles as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. That is a priority I will pursue from my very first day.
Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008
Recognize the humanity of immigrants: Todos somos Americanos
Ultimately, the danger to the American way of life is not that we will be overrun by those who do not look like us or do not yet speak our language. The danger will come if we fail to recognize the humanity of [immigrants]--if we withhold from them the opportunities we take for granted, and create a servant class in our midst.
More broadly, the danger will come if we continue to stand idly by as the gap between Wall Street and Main Street grows, as Washington grows more out of touch, and as America grows more unequal. Because America can only prosper when all Americans prosper--brown, black, white, Asian, and Native American. That's the idea that lies at the heart of my campaign, and that's the idea that will lie at the heart of my presidency. Because we are all Americans. Todos somos Americanos. And in this country, we rise and fall together.
Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008
GovWatch: Anti-immigrants fuel xenophobia, but 45% increase
Barack Obama said at a Palm Beach fundraiser on May 22, "A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year. If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen."
Obama needs to be more careful in his use of statistics. If he is going to blame Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh for "ginning up" hate crimes against Hispanics, he needs solid data to back up his allegation. The hate crimes statistics are wildly inaccurate--and a subsequent modified claim provided by his campaign was also off the mark.
Lou Dobbs of CNN has repeatedly made use of flawed statistics, but there is no excuse for resorting to equally flawed data to attack Dobbs and his ilk. Hate crime offenses against Latinos rose from 529 in 2003 to 770 in 2006, a total increase over three years of about 45% [not even closed to double].
Source: GovWatch on 2008: Washington Post analysis Jun 4, 2008
Encourage every student to learn a second language
Q: Is there any down side to the US becoming a bilingual nation?
A: It is important that everyone learns English and that we have that process of binding ourselves together as a country. Every student should be learning a second language, because when you start getting into a debate about bilingual education, for example, now, I want to make sure that children who are coming out of Spanish-speaking households had the opportunity to learn and are not falling behind. If bilingual education helps them do that, I want to give them the opportunity. But I also want to make sure that English-speaking children are getting foreign languages because this world is becoming more interdependent and part of the process of America's continued leadership in the world is going to be our capacity to communicate across boundaries, across borders, and that's something frankly where we've fallen behind. Foreign languages is one of those areas that I think has been neglected. I want to put more resources into it.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Need to look at different aspects of immigration reform
We need stronger border security. We are cracking down on employers that are taking advantage of undocumented workers because they can't complain if they're not paid a minimum wage and not getting overtime. Worker safety laws are not being observed. We have to make sure that doesn't lead to people with Spanish surnames being discriminated against. We have to require that undocumented workers go to the back of the line, so that they are not getting citizenship before those who have applied legally.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Have border patrolled, surveillance, and deploy technology
Q: Do you think your vote on the border fence or the implementation of it was wrong?
A: The key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier. The Bush administration is not real good at listening. I will reverse that policy. There may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. Having border patrolled, surveillance, deploying effective technology, that's going to be the better approach.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Increasing the legal fees on immigrants is not helping
It is important that we fix the legal immigration system, because right now we've got a backlog that means years for people to apply legally. What's worse is, we keep on increasing the fees, so that if you've got a hard working immigrant family, they've got to hire a lawyer; they've got to pay thousands of dollars in fees. They just can't afford it. It's discriminatory against people who have good character, but don't have the money. We've got to fix that. We have to improve our relationship with Mexico and work with the Mexican government so that their economy is producing jobs on that side of the border. The problem is that we have had an administration that came in promising all sorts of leadership on creating a US-Mexican relationship. Bush dropped the ball. He has been so obsessed with Iraq that we have not seen the kinds of outreach and cooperative work that would ensure that the Mexican economy is working not just for the very wealthy in Mexico, but for all people.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Deporting 12 million people is ridiculous and impractical
The American people want fairness, want justice. They recognize that the idea that you're going to deport 12 million people is ridiculous, that we're not going to be devoting all our law enforcement resources to sending people back. But what they do also want is some order to the process. We're not going to be able to do these things in isolation. We're not going to be able to deal with the 12 million people who are living in the shadows and give them a way of getting out of the shadows if we don't also deal with the problem of this constant influx of undocumented workers. That's why comprehensive reform is so important. Something that we can do immediately that is very important is to pass the Dream Act, which allows children who through no fault of their own are here but have essentially grown up as Americans, allow them the opportunity for higher education. I do not want two classes of citizens in this country. I want everybody to prosper. That's going to be a top priority.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
and so on .....
dresses Golf course: Laguna Phuket
nk2006
09-30 02:59 PM
I think a lot of AC21 cases are getting rejected because of the revocation of I140, Companies don't want to keep the people on their list if he/she is not working, because they have to prove the ability to pay for all those people as well. so they are revoking the I140 for people who are not with them anyore to reduce number of people in their list with USCIS.
That is right - most of these rejections seems to be because of I140 revocations - but as per AC21 this should not result in outright rejection and candidate needs to receive a NOID - this is a result of mis-interpretation of USCIS rules by their own staff and is an administrative issue which needs to be fixed by USCIS.
That is right - most of these rejections seems to be because of I140 revocations - but as per AC21 this should not result in outright rejection and candidate needs to receive a NOID - this is a result of mis-interpretation of USCIS rules by their own staff and is an administrative issue which needs to be fixed by USCIS.
more...
makeup Course Layout. Course Layout
StuckInTheMuck
08-06 09:31 AM
New alcohol warnings (from Toronto Board of Health):
1. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to wake up with a breath that could knock a buzzard off a wreaking dead animal that is one hundred yards away.
2. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol is a major factor in dancing like an idiot.
3. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell the same boring story over and over again until your friends want to assault you
4. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to thay shings like thish.
5. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell the boss what you really think of him.
6. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol is the leading cause of inexplicable rug burn on the forehead.
7. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher, handsomer and smarter than some really, really big guy named Psycho Bob.
8. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause sufficient brain damage to make you participate in this debate (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20669).
1. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to wake up with a breath that could knock a buzzard off a wreaking dead animal that is one hundred yards away.
2. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol is a major factor in dancing like an idiot.
3. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell the same boring story over and over again until your friends want to assault you
4. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to thay shings like thish.
5. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell the boss what you really think of him.
6. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol is the leading cause of inexplicable rug burn on the forehead.
7. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher, handsomer and smarter than some really, really big guy named Psycho Bob.
8. WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause sufficient brain damage to make you participate in this debate (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20669).
girlfriend Greywolf Golf Course - aerial
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
hairstyles COURSE LAYOUT
mariner5555
04-25 02:45 PM
I also thought that pitching in the home buying by GC folks would make a great argument in front of law makers. But there was a very sensible posting by our spokes person Mark B.
He said, he would not put home buying by GC folks as a main selling point for our cause. May be he will say this point as a half joke-half serious manner while discussing our core selling point. The core selling point being that the US is losing talent by not giving us GCs in a timely manner.
let me give my views as to why Mark and others are missing the main point that I am trying to make. agreed using this as the main point may not work ..but this has to be a very important point. at the back of their mind - the policy makers know that some talent will definitely leave but lot will stay back (and they will keep paying USCIS money). even if people go back to India or China ..who will employ them ..it is the same MNC / big US corporations ..
(so they know some talent will leak away ..but majority will stay back ..you just need to know the quota system / political system in India and china ..and automatically you will know that the talented guys will do everything to prevent their children from going through that ..)
the second point is for the admin fix (which I guess can be done by president without congress approval) ..in every poll ..the President has a low ranking ..the last thing that he needs is to be blamed for this recession too ..
so during their meetings if DHS or others were to suggest that more immigrants would buy more stuff here (rather than buying houses in India / china) ..if they were more sure of their status ..the admin fix would have greater chance of success ..
He said, he would not put home buying by GC folks as a main selling point for our cause. May be he will say this point as a half joke-half serious manner while discussing our core selling point. The core selling point being that the US is losing talent by not giving us GCs in a timely manner.
let me give my views as to why Mark and others are missing the main point that I am trying to make. agreed using this as the main point may not work ..but this has to be a very important point. at the back of their mind - the policy makers know that some talent will definitely leave but lot will stay back (and they will keep paying USCIS money). even if people go back to India or China ..who will employ them ..it is the same MNC / big US corporations ..
(so they know some talent will leak away ..but majority will stay back ..you just need to know the quota system / political system in India and china ..and automatically you will know that the talented guys will do everything to prevent their children from going through that ..)
the second point is for the admin fix (which I guess can be done by president without congress approval) ..in every poll ..the President has a low ranking ..the last thing that he needs is to be blamed for this recession too ..
so during their meetings if DHS or others were to suggest that more immigrants would buy more stuff here (rather than buying houses in India / china) ..if they were more sure of their status ..the admin fix would have greater chance of success ..
xyzgc
12-28 12:35 AM
As much as terrorism is an evil thing, surgical strikes and stuff won't do crap. It will further alienate and give fodder to the mullahs to create more Kasab's. Really, do you think we can stop 20 yr old guys who are willing to kill themselves, think again? These guys are just washed out completely, there is no retribution, pain, all they see is a target and blow themselves out.
Instead, we should concentrate on the war within that we face. Be it from communal/political/socio-economic violence or lack of regard for the common man's life. By no means I am saying inaction but war is certainly not the solution. Pakistan will meet its fate sooner than later if they continue the path they have chosen. We don't have to hasten it.
200 Indians dying is painful but look at these figures to put things into perspective.
Accidents in India:
http://morth.nic.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/table-6408184011.htm
AIDS
http://www.avert.org/indiaaids.htm
Infant Mortality:
http://www.indexmundi.com/India/infant_mortality_rate.html
Rapes
http://keralaonline.com/news/india-ranks-rape-cases_12144.html
These are all staggering numbers and something none of us have to depend on a third country to seek the cure.
I hope India continues to apply diplomatic pressure and show the world the parasite Pakistan it has become. As Zardari today acknowledged, they have a cancer within the country, its eating up. If they don't, its just a matter of time. To cure that, if they find mullahs as their doctors, time will be up pretty soon..
Do you mean we should spend the $26 billion on defence budgets (yearly) just to make hollow noises and allow terrorists to run amok in our cities and attack our senate?How many years your folks in India have paid taxes to the central govt? Have you tracked the tax money that goes out of your family's pockets?
Or are you saying that we should donate our arsenal to Pakistan and stop spending on defence, henceforth?
Children are blinded to make beggars in Bombay, women get raped in Delhi, sex workers have AIDS all over the metros, so you are saying we should divert all our defence budgets towards humanitarian causes?
Why don't you suggest this to Honorable Mr. Manmohan Singh and Honorable P Chidambaram and see if your Utopian proposal will be ever accepted?
Instead, we should concentrate on the war within that we face. Be it from communal/political/socio-economic violence or lack of regard for the common man's life. By no means I am saying inaction but war is certainly not the solution. Pakistan will meet its fate sooner than later if they continue the path they have chosen. We don't have to hasten it.
200 Indians dying is painful but look at these figures to put things into perspective.
Accidents in India:
http://morth.nic.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/table-6408184011.htm
AIDS
http://www.avert.org/indiaaids.htm
Infant Mortality:
http://www.indexmundi.com/India/infant_mortality_rate.html
Rapes
http://keralaonline.com/news/india-ranks-rape-cases_12144.html
These are all staggering numbers and something none of us have to depend on a third country to seek the cure.
I hope India continues to apply diplomatic pressure and show the world the parasite Pakistan it has become. As Zardari today acknowledged, they have a cancer within the country, its eating up. If they don't, its just a matter of time. To cure that, if they find mullahs as their doctors, time will be up pretty soon..
Do you mean we should spend the $26 billion on defence budgets (yearly) just to make hollow noises and allow terrorists to run amok in our cities and attack our senate?How many years your folks in India have paid taxes to the central govt? Have you tracked the tax money that goes out of your family's pockets?
Or are you saying that we should donate our arsenal to Pakistan and stop spending on defence, henceforth?
Children are blinded to make beggars in Bombay, women get raped in Delhi, sex workers have AIDS all over the metros, so you are saying we should divert all our defence budgets towards humanitarian causes?
Why don't you suggest this to Honorable Mr. Manmohan Singh and Honorable P Chidambaram and see if your Utopian proposal will be ever accepted?
like_watching_paint_dry
04-13 10:36 PM
thanks for the suggestion..I dont have those details..for now its all good..but I was thinking one more time, I will hire an attorney.. :)
You can try contacting the acquiring company. They usually also have all the records of the company they bought and may be able to give you a letter of employment or a HR contact who can respond to employment verification requests. I did this with my old company which got acquired after I quit, and the acquiring company obliged. They also discovered I had some uncollected pay, which I still need to cash out. :o
Fortunately, in my case, it never went that far where the IO was verifying all that information. Is this IO processing your G325A document?
You can try contacting the acquiring company. They usually also have all the records of the company they bought and may be able to give you a letter of employment or a HR contact who can respond to employment verification requests. I did this with my old company which got acquired after I quit, and the acquiring company obliged. They also discovered I had some uncollected pay, which I still need to cash out. :o
Fortunately, in my case, it never went that far where the IO was verifying all that information. Is this IO processing your G325A document?
No comments:
Post a Comment