unitednations
08-02 11:55 AM
I read this thread ONLY to not to miss any single word from US, no wonder.. his advises are indirectly helping many others like me in getting more understanding about what we are doing..
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
very good information. I just hope it isn't too late for people to put in the correct information into the forms.
I remember in my previous day job whenever there was a gray area that we were trying to exploit (could be Securities and Exchange Rules, IRS rules, etc.), all we had to do was convince ourselves and ourselves had the vested interest in getting a certain outcome. However; we always had to be ready for the next level if the regulatory bodies came asking that we had a reasonable basis for our conclusions.
Difference in most things is that the SEC and IRS do not "approve" your tax returns or financial statements. They may come and ask. However; immigration law; the onus on us is to prove that we are eligible for the benefit and have to prove it with every application. Everyone should be ready for the next level of scrutiny.
I had worked on a case where USCIS was trying to add up 20 i-140's for ability to pay and telling the company that they don't have the numbers for all those people. While we were working on this; we had to get ready for the possible outcome (ie., uscis going after the approved i-140's (44 of them) and the h-1b's. We responded to the 20 rfe's but had set it up that if uscis came asking about the others that the information we were showing in these responses would not contradict and would be sufficient if they came after the approved ones.
Well; after the rfe response; uscis did come after the approved cases and sent in the notice of intent to revoke the 44 approved cases (some were approved almost three years before). They all got re-approved but you have to be ready with all the evidence.
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
very good information. I just hope it isn't too late for people to put in the correct information into the forms.
I remember in my previous day job whenever there was a gray area that we were trying to exploit (could be Securities and Exchange Rules, IRS rules, etc.), all we had to do was convince ourselves and ourselves had the vested interest in getting a certain outcome. However; we always had to be ready for the next level if the regulatory bodies came asking that we had a reasonable basis for our conclusions.
Difference in most things is that the SEC and IRS do not "approve" your tax returns or financial statements. They may come and ask. However; immigration law; the onus on us is to prove that we are eligible for the benefit and have to prove it with every application. Everyone should be ready for the next level of scrutiny.
I had worked on a case where USCIS was trying to add up 20 i-140's for ability to pay and telling the company that they don't have the numbers for all those people. While we were working on this; we had to get ready for the possible outcome (ie., uscis going after the approved i-140's (44 of them) and the h-1b's. We responded to the 20 rfe's but had set it up that if uscis came asking about the others that the information we were showing in these responses would not contradict and would be sufficient if they came after the approved ones.
Well; after the rfe response; uscis did come after the approved cases and sent in the notice of intent to revoke the 44 approved cases (some were approved almost three years before). They all got re-approved but you have to be ready with all the evidence.
wallpaper laetitia casta foto.
waitnwatch
08-06 02:05 PM
Ha ha ha ..................
I just got a red dot with the following comment for explaining what INA and CFR are
"Why ar eyou after BS + 5 years exp?"
To the person who served up that comment ........I'm not for or against anything or anyone. I am just trying to put a legal and logical basis on the discussion. I think everyone working hard in the US deserves to get their green card sooner than later. This discussion will not influence USCIS in anyway so we might as well try to hone our arguments and thrash out the logic instead of lambasting each other on a personal level. I guess all of us here are educated enough to do that.
I just got a red dot with the following comment for explaining what INA and CFR are
"Why ar eyou after BS + 5 years exp?"
To the person who served up that comment ........I'm not for or against anything or anyone. I am just trying to put a legal and logical basis on the discussion. I think everyone working hard in the US deserves to get their green card sooner than later. This discussion will not influence USCIS in anyway so we might as well try to hone our arguments and thrash out the logic instead of lambasting each other on a personal level. I guess all of us here are educated enough to do that.
saravanaraj.sathya
08-08 10:39 AM
UnitedNations - You are simply amazing..I admire ur courage and feel more confident now. I think this thread has invaludable information so that people will be careful before giving any wrong information to USCIS and geting into to trouble later on.
Question-
--------------------
Whtz if some does not have pay stubs after filing I-485..Is that a problem atall? Does uscis check only for the records until I-485 is filed. Please let me know. Also can I work as an individual contractor on W-2?
Yes, that is correct.
I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:
w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.
I-134 affidavit of support
All passports
Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)
Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary
last three months paystubs
Company two years of tax returns
Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999
Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).
I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.
From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.
Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).
I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.
Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.
He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.
He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.
He then said case is approved.
Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.
Question-
--------------------
Whtz if some does not have pay stubs after filing I-485..Is that a problem atall? Does uscis check only for the records until I-485 is filed. Please let me know. Also can I work as an individual contractor on W-2?
Yes, that is correct.
I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:
w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.
I-134 affidavit of support
All passports
Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)
Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary
last three months paystubs
Company two years of tax returns
Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999
Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).
I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.
From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.
Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).
I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.
Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.
He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.
He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.
He then said case is approved.
Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.
2011 laetitia casta house.
ArkBird
05-01 01:42 PM
By the way what is the actual status of this bill?
more...
Macaca
12-29 07:42 PM
What India Inc. Was Up To in 2010 (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/12/29/what-india-inc-was-up-to-in-2010/) By Tripti Lahiri | IndiaRealTime
We looked back at almost a year of India Real Time blog posts on business and the economy and here, summed up in five points, are the highs, lows and key things to take away from all the court judgments, reports, numbers and other data that the Indian economy and India Inc. generated this year.
The Ambani fraternal feud ended, sort of. A Supreme Court judgment in May said a gas price set by the government would prevail over one in an agreement between Mukesh Ambani and younger brother Anil Ambani, ending the long-running legal dispute between the two over at what price Mukesh should sell gas to his younger brother.
Years on from their father�s death in 2002, and after an acrimonious split of the Ambani business empire in 2005, things seem to be easing between the two. This year the two brother scrapped a noncompete agreement. That move allows firms from each brother�s empire to work in areas that the other brother is already involved in.
Car sales, viewed as an indicator of overall economic health, chugged along. Even though upgrades to meet new fuel emissions rules made cars more expensive and rate increases made loans more expensive, cars sold like crazy, according to sales figures released each month. Although small, compact cars continue to be India�s top preference, SUVs made a lot of headway in India this year, to the distress of India�s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh.
Speaking of Jairam Ramesh, the environment minister has been very energetic, to industry�s distress. Mr. Ramesh was quick to act on a panel report that said the India-focused metals firm Vedanta had violated provisions of India�s forest rights law. He halted the company�s bauxite mining plans in Orissa. The Lavasa hill town project in Maharashtra also got a stop-work order from the environment ministry in the wake of complaints from a nonprofit.
Mr. Ramesh is now debating whether or not to put the green hex on the already vexed Korean steelmaker Posco, which has been trying to bring plans to build a steel plant in Orissa to fruition for five years. What he does�a decision is expected early in the new year�on the steel plant will could help show industry whether Vedanta was a one-off or whether Mr. Ramesh means to continue as he has begun.
RBI Governor Duvvuri Subbarao is watching inflation like a hawk. It�s true the central bank governor, who likes to crack a joke or two and quotes Chinese leaders from time to time, didn�t raise rates at the last monetary policy review two weeks ago. (He had said in November that the Reserve Bank of India wasn�t likely to do so for about three months.)
However, inflation has been a key concern all year and the Indian bank has been fairly aggressive about tightening. With a goal of bringing the headline inflation rate, which was 7.48% in November, down by 2 percentage points by March, expect Mr. Subbaro to resume a tight hold of the reins.
Indian women have a really hard time juggling family and work, and that�s probably not good for the economy. It�s pretty clear that Indian women aren�t shy about leading�a woman runs the ruling party and another woman heads India�s top private bank. More women are CEOs of top companies here than of Fortune 500 companies. But several reports and conferences over the year have said that India needs to do more to take advantage of educated women it has, particularly as firms in the formal sector complain of a shortage (as a country of a billion people, there�s no unskilled labor shortage though).
Many of them agreed that Indian women face extremely high pressure on the family front, even compared to women in other emerging economies, and that it can be quite hard for them stick with positions and climb up the ladder as a result.
India Raises Renewable Energy Target Fourfold (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576048870791325278.html) By ERIC YEP | IndiaRealTime
We looked back at almost a year of India Real Time blog posts on business and the economy and here, summed up in five points, are the highs, lows and key things to take away from all the court judgments, reports, numbers and other data that the Indian economy and India Inc. generated this year.
The Ambani fraternal feud ended, sort of. A Supreme Court judgment in May said a gas price set by the government would prevail over one in an agreement between Mukesh Ambani and younger brother Anil Ambani, ending the long-running legal dispute between the two over at what price Mukesh should sell gas to his younger brother.
Years on from their father�s death in 2002, and after an acrimonious split of the Ambani business empire in 2005, things seem to be easing between the two. This year the two brother scrapped a noncompete agreement. That move allows firms from each brother�s empire to work in areas that the other brother is already involved in.
Car sales, viewed as an indicator of overall economic health, chugged along. Even though upgrades to meet new fuel emissions rules made cars more expensive and rate increases made loans more expensive, cars sold like crazy, according to sales figures released each month. Although small, compact cars continue to be India�s top preference, SUVs made a lot of headway in India this year, to the distress of India�s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh.
Speaking of Jairam Ramesh, the environment minister has been very energetic, to industry�s distress. Mr. Ramesh was quick to act on a panel report that said the India-focused metals firm Vedanta had violated provisions of India�s forest rights law. He halted the company�s bauxite mining plans in Orissa. The Lavasa hill town project in Maharashtra also got a stop-work order from the environment ministry in the wake of complaints from a nonprofit.
Mr. Ramesh is now debating whether or not to put the green hex on the already vexed Korean steelmaker Posco, which has been trying to bring plans to build a steel plant in Orissa to fruition for five years. What he does�a decision is expected early in the new year�on the steel plant will could help show industry whether Vedanta was a one-off or whether Mr. Ramesh means to continue as he has begun.
RBI Governor Duvvuri Subbarao is watching inflation like a hawk. It�s true the central bank governor, who likes to crack a joke or two and quotes Chinese leaders from time to time, didn�t raise rates at the last monetary policy review two weeks ago. (He had said in November that the Reserve Bank of India wasn�t likely to do so for about three months.)
However, inflation has been a key concern all year and the Indian bank has been fairly aggressive about tightening. With a goal of bringing the headline inflation rate, which was 7.48% in November, down by 2 percentage points by March, expect Mr. Subbaro to resume a tight hold of the reins.
Indian women have a really hard time juggling family and work, and that�s probably not good for the economy. It�s pretty clear that Indian women aren�t shy about leading�a woman runs the ruling party and another woman heads India�s top private bank. More women are CEOs of top companies here than of Fortune 500 companies. But several reports and conferences over the year have said that India needs to do more to take advantage of educated women it has, particularly as firms in the formal sector complain of a shortage (as a country of a billion people, there�s no unskilled labor shortage though).
Many of them agreed that Indian women face extremely high pressure on the family front, even compared to women in other emerging economies, and that it can be quite hard for them stick with positions and climb up the ladder as a result.
India Raises Renewable Energy Target Fourfold (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576048870791325278.html) By ERIC YEP | IndiaRealTime
Macaca
02-27 07:18 PM
Democrats Should Read Kipling (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18kristol.html?ref=opinion) By WILLIAM KRISTOL | NYT, Feb 18
Browsing through a used-book store Friday � in the Milwaukee airport, of all places � I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell�s essays. That�s how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell�s perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn�t be surprised that its argument would shed light� or so it seems to me � on contemporary American politics.
Orwell offers a highly qualified appreciation of the then (and still) politically incorrect Kipling. He insists that one must admit that Kipling is �morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.� Still, he says, Kipling �survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.� One reason for this is that Kipling �identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.�
�In a gifted writer,� Orwell remarks, �this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality.� Kipling �at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like.� For, Orwell explains, �The ruling power is always faced with the question, �In such and such circumstances, what would you do?�, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.� Furthermore, �where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.�
If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell�s argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.
Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party � with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no longer even try to imagine what action and responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy the support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept and ungraceful ways of the Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats� academic and media supporters � a permanent and, as it were, pensioned opposition � seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted.)
The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush�s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn�t turn those failures around. Democrats were �against� the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 Congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing.
So it continues in 2008. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.
Not all Democrats have refused to listen. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took seriously the job of updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of technological changes and court decisions. His committee produced an impressive report, and, by a vote of 13 to 2, sent legislation to the floor that would have preserved the government�s ability to listen to foreign phone calls and read foreign e-mail that passed through switching points in the United States. The full Senate passed the legislation easily � with a majority of Democrats voting against, and Senators Obama and Clinton indicating their opposition from the campaign trail.
But the Democratic House leadership balked � particularly at the notion of protecting from lawsuits companies that had cooperated with the government in surveillance efforts after Sept. 11. Director McConnell repeatedly explained that such private-sector cooperation is critical to antiterror efforts, in surveillance and other areas, and that it requires the assurance of immunity. �Your country is at risk if we can�t get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time,� he said. But for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies � and to the Bush administration � seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country.
To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?
An Old Hand Goads Democrats to Get Tough on Ethics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002831.html?hpid=sec-politics) By Mary Ann Akers And Paul Kane | WP, Feb 21
Browsing through a used-book store Friday � in the Milwaukee airport, of all places � I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell�s essays. That�s how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell�s perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn�t be surprised that its argument would shed light� or so it seems to me � on contemporary American politics.
Orwell offers a highly qualified appreciation of the then (and still) politically incorrect Kipling. He insists that one must admit that Kipling is �morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.� Still, he says, Kipling �survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.� One reason for this is that Kipling �identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.�
�In a gifted writer,� Orwell remarks, �this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality.� Kipling �at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like.� For, Orwell explains, �The ruling power is always faced with the question, �In such and such circumstances, what would you do?�, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.� Furthermore, �where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.�
If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell�s argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.
Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party � with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no longer even try to imagine what action and responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy the support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept and ungraceful ways of the Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats� academic and media supporters � a permanent and, as it were, pensioned opposition � seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted.)
The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush�s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn�t turn those failures around. Democrats were �against� the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 Congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing.
So it continues in 2008. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.
Not all Democrats have refused to listen. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took seriously the job of updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of technological changes and court decisions. His committee produced an impressive report, and, by a vote of 13 to 2, sent legislation to the floor that would have preserved the government�s ability to listen to foreign phone calls and read foreign e-mail that passed through switching points in the United States. The full Senate passed the legislation easily � with a majority of Democrats voting against, and Senators Obama and Clinton indicating their opposition from the campaign trail.
But the Democratic House leadership balked � particularly at the notion of protecting from lawsuits companies that had cooperated with the government in surveillance efforts after Sept. 11. Director McConnell repeatedly explained that such private-sector cooperation is critical to antiterror efforts, in surveillance and other areas, and that it requires the assurance of immunity. �Your country is at risk if we can�t get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time,� he said. But for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies � and to the Bush administration � seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country.
To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?
An Old Hand Goads Democrats to Get Tough on Ethics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002831.html?hpid=sec-politics) By Mary Ann Akers And Paul Kane | WP, Feb 21
more...
gc28262
03-24 07:30 PM
There are two service centers that process h-1b's. California and vermont.
Vermont was very, very easy in the past. Now; they want contract and purchase order with end client. If somehow you can get it then they want detailed duties to see if job requires a degree. it is difficult to get a purchase order/letter from end client let alone a detailed job description/duty. If you can't get one and they ask in an rfe; they are denying it.
If you can get one; they are stating duties aren't specialized enough to determine job requires a degree OR they think the company is going to further outsource the candidate.
California is along similar lines but they only deny if they think the contract/purchase order is from the middle man.
Big problem is verrmont changed their expectations midstream. California has been pretty consistent the last few years and they haven't changed much in how they look at h-1b's.
Isn't the employee-employer relationship between employee and the consulting company ?
Why should USCIS get into the details of how the companies conduct their business ( like asking for client letters etc ) ?
Is USCIS supposed to do this?
Vermont was very, very easy in the past. Now; they want contract and purchase order with end client. If somehow you can get it then they want detailed duties to see if job requires a degree. it is difficult to get a purchase order/letter from end client let alone a detailed job description/duty. If you can't get one and they ask in an rfe; they are denying it.
If you can get one; they are stating duties aren't specialized enough to determine job requires a degree OR they think the company is going to further outsource the candidate.
California is along similar lines but they only deny if they think the contract/purchase order is from the middle man.
Big problem is verrmont changed their expectations midstream. California has been pretty consistent the last few years and they haven't changed much in how they look at h-1b's.
Isn't the employee-employer relationship between employee and the consulting company ?
Why should USCIS get into the details of how the companies conduct their business ( like asking for client letters etc ) ?
Is USCIS supposed to do this?
2010 Laetitia Casta Hot Images
immique
07-14 01:48 AM
well said. people should realize that EB visa system is based on principles that are thought to benefit US. retrogressed EB2 categories cannot whine about EB1 saying that EB2 should be current also. personally I know many Physicians who have applied in EB2 and have been waiting for years even though many of them qualify for EB1. In the same manner EB3 cannot complain about EB2 saying that spill over should go to EB3 when EB2 is itself retrogressed. remember that the directive for the correct interpretation of the law came from Congress itself. This has actually revealed that EB2 was unfairly disadvantaged last year when all the spillovers got passed to EB3 while EB2 was unavailable. They may even consider to compensate retrogressed categories in EB2 with all those Visa numbers that were improperly given to EB3 ROW by giving EB3 ROW visas to EB2 retrogressed categories from this years and next years quota. I totally understand the plight of EB3 I and agree that there needs to be a solution for this. But complaining to State Department or USCIS will not change a thing as they are only there to follow the laws and not make any changes to the existing laws. campaign from the whole EB community has not produced much result this year to eliminate retrogression. I don't think campaign by one category (EB3) from just one country (India) is going to achieve the result by this letter campaign. rather, the efforts should be concentrated in ending retrogression for all the categories through effective legislation and can only be achieved by cooperation between all the categories.
Disclaimer: I am an EB3-Indian with a PD of Oct 2003.
Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?
Remember, a drowning man will clutch on to a straw for hope. You are like a sailor in a boat trying to tell the drowning man that a straw is no good. So, if you cannot get Eb3-Indians to see your point-of-view, just lay off this thread. Do you really expect all EB3-Indians to say "Thanks to delax, we now see the folly of our arguments. Let's stop this irrational effort, and instead just do nothing!"
I can assure you that despite being an EB3-Indian, I am not participating in this campaign. Because I know that it is a ridiculous argument to expect PD to take preference over skills. And honestly, I cannot come up with a single rational reason to demand a GC for me over any EB1 or EB2 applicant.
To all you EB3-Indians, chisel this into your brain: The US immigration system wants EB1 first, then EB2 and then EB3. It doesn't matter what your qualifications are or what the profession is...what matters is in which employment-based category was your LC filed. If you think, you are skilled enough, then stop wasting time in arguing with EB2 folks. Use your skills to apply for EB1 (which is current) or EB2 and get your GC fast. Otherwise, get this chiselled into your head as well: You are less skilled than EB2 and EB1 (purely on the basis of the LC category), so it makes 100% sense that US will give you the lowest priority. Period.
As I wrote earlier, I'm an EB3-Indian as well. Only differences being, I have still maintained my sanity, and I have the patience to wait for IV to deliver the official guidance on proceeding further.
Disclaimer: I am an EB3-Indian with a PD of Oct 2003.
Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?
Remember, a drowning man will clutch on to a straw for hope. You are like a sailor in a boat trying to tell the drowning man that a straw is no good. So, if you cannot get Eb3-Indians to see your point-of-view, just lay off this thread. Do you really expect all EB3-Indians to say "Thanks to delax, we now see the folly of our arguments. Let's stop this irrational effort, and instead just do nothing!"
I can assure you that despite being an EB3-Indian, I am not participating in this campaign. Because I know that it is a ridiculous argument to expect PD to take preference over skills. And honestly, I cannot come up with a single rational reason to demand a GC for me over any EB1 or EB2 applicant.
To all you EB3-Indians, chisel this into your brain: The US immigration system wants EB1 first, then EB2 and then EB3. It doesn't matter what your qualifications are or what the profession is...what matters is in which employment-based category was your LC filed. If you think, you are skilled enough, then stop wasting time in arguing with EB2 folks. Use your skills to apply for EB1 (which is current) or EB2 and get your GC fast. Otherwise, get this chiselled into your head as well: You are less skilled than EB2 and EB1 (purely on the basis of the LC category), so it makes 100% sense that US will give you the lowest priority. Period.
As I wrote earlier, I'm an EB3-Indian as well. Only differences being, I have still maintained my sanity, and I have the patience to wait for IV to deliver the official guidance on proceeding further.
more...
validIV
06-25 02:26 PM
Your second point of buying 3-4 homes with 20% down each and building equity on rent is the classic strategy to head into multiple foreclosures at once. This was the exact thinking that got so many real estate speculators in deep whole. Show me a single major city that has good amount of jobs (Bay area/Boston/Seattle) and where the monthly rent covers the monthly mortgage payment+property tax+home insurance. If that were the case all these homeowners would not be underwater, they would just give their houses on rent!
I am not foreclosed and neither is anyone I know. Who do you know is foreclosed? Were they smart or stupid in their investment? How much did they put down? Did they crunch the numbers and do the math?
You do not invest without a plan to cover all scenarios and you definitely do not invest beyond your means. The people that caused the meltdown and caused foreclosures couldnt afford the property to begin with. Is that you? Do you fit into that category? If so, do not buy.
I am not foreclosed and neither is anyone I know. Who do you know is foreclosed? Were they smart or stupid in their investment? How much did they put down? Did they crunch the numbers and do the math?
You do not invest without a plan to cover all scenarios and you definitely do not invest beyond your means. The people that caused the meltdown and caused foreclosures couldnt afford the property to begin with. Is that you? Do you fit into that category? If so, do not buy.
hair Laetitia Casta
prioritydate
01-10 11:29 AM
Exactly!! Just like the Europeans had a right to defend themselves against the Native Americans.
Fortunately for them, they did their ethnic cleansing before the mass media and enlightenment. God bless them for it. Now we can come from far and distant places to get permanent residency into this land.
Unfortunately for the Israelis, like Benny Morris recently said, they couldn't kill all their Barbarians (the Arabs/Palestinians) in the 1940s. Had they completely ethnically cleansed Israel/Palestine of the Arabs back then, we wouldn't have this Israel/Arab problem today.
If you talk about history, then we should go back to the days where Muslims invaded and killed innocent people in millions. If you kill some people then it is called jihad, but if someone kill you, then it is barbarism. Palestinians and rest of Muslims should learn to live and let live people. No body wants someone's crazy ideas. Got my point? Further, don't listen to your mullahs!
Fortunately for them, they did their ethnic cleansing before the mass media and enlightenment. God bless them for it. Now we can come from far and distant places to get permanent residency into this land.
Unfortunately for the Israelis, like Benny Morris recently said, they couldn't kill all their Barbarians (the Arabs/Palestinians) in the 1940s. Had they completely ethnically cleansed Israel/Palestine of the Arabs back then, we wouldn't have this Israel/Arab problem today.
If you talk about history, then we should go back to the days where Muslims invaded and killed innocent people in millions. If you kill some people then it is called jihad, but if someone kill you, then it is barbarism. Palestinians and rest of Muslims should learn to live and let live people. No body wants someone's crazy ideas. Got my point? Further, don't listen to your mullahs!
more...
panky72
08-09 02:00 AM
Just ignore those useless weeds (who don�t know what �joke� means), not only in this thread, even in real life also.
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
:)Thanks nogc_noproblem. BTW where do you find so many funny jokes:D
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
:)Thanks nogc_noproblem. BTW where do you find so many funny jokes:D
hot Laetitia Casta for Caesars
gimme_GC2006
03-23 12:22 PM
if the e-mail address is ending with "dot gov" then you should be fine. If some is mailing from yahoo & gmail then dont respond.
:-)
:-)
more...
house Laetitia Casta
aadimanav
07-13 09:35 PM
Version 2 of the "Petition to Recapture Lost Visas" is added here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262392#post262392
Please share your views.
Thanks,
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262392#post262392
Please share your views.
Thanks,
tattoo Laetitia Casta Louis Vuitton
Macaca
02-12 02:39 PM
Lou Dobbs rants about the pardon every day. A CNN special contradicts Lou Dobbs.
Commentary: Anti-immigrant mob creates false heroes (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/12/navarrette/index.html)
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- The world is upside down. A posse of Republican lawmakers who, when opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants, like to talk about how rules must be followed and how we shouldn't reward lawbreakers. They're now demanding that a pair of convicted felons be rewarded with a presidential pardon.
Ex-Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos were sentenced to 11 years and 12 years in prison, respectively, after a jury convicted them of shooting an unarmed suspect and then covering it up.
It happened on February 17, 2005. That's when Compean and Ramos encountered a suspicious van along the Texas-Mexico border.
The driver, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, abandoned the vehicle and tried to run into Mexico. Aldrete-Davila was smuggling drugs, and the van was loaded with more than 700 pounds of marijuana.
Compean fired at least 14 rounds and Ramos fired once, hitting Aldrete-Davila. The agents then collected the shell casings, failed to report the shooting, and filed reports that made no mention of the incident.
None of this is heroic, except to the anti-immigrant mob, which has been making excuses for Compean and Ramos while accusing U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office prosecuted the case, of being an agent of the Mexican government.
Recently, Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Richard L. Skinner admitted that officials in his office "misinformed" Republican members of Congress when they claimed to have proof that Compean and Ramos confessed their guilt and said that they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" before the incident.
But what does all this have to do with the price of whiskey in West Texas? Not a thing. It was the U.S. attorney's office, and not the Homeland Security Department, that brought this case. So, unless federal prosecutors lied to the court or defense attorneys, there is no reason for a pardon.
I've spoken to Sutton twice in the last couple of weeks, and he didn't strike me as some wild-eyed prosecutor. He insists that a lot of what is out there is "overheated rhetoric" from the ill-informed.
Much of that rhetoric belongs to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, (or as he is aptly described in this case, Dana "off-his-rocker"). The congressman has said that President Bush could be impeached if either Ramos or Compean meets his demise in prison.
As his name gets dragged through the mud, you'd think that Sutton might hold a grudge. Not so.
"I have a lot of sympathy for some of the folks who are worked up because the narrative that they read is so different from the reality of what the jury heard," Sutton told me.
But what about those unsympathetic Republican hacks, Minutemen vigilantes and conservative bloggers who are using this case to further their own agendas? For Sutton, it's a reminder that there is no substitute for the American justice system. While not perfect, that system is designed to dole out justice based on facts and law, not politics.
"It's why we litigate these things in a courtroom and not on cable television or the Internet," he said.
Be glad that's so.
Commentary: Anti-immigrant mob creates false heroes (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/12/navarrette/index.html)
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- The world is upside down. A posse of Republican lawmakers who, when opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants, like to talk about how rules must be followed and how we shouldn't reward lawbreakers. They're now demanding that a pair of convicted felons be rewarded with a presidential pardon.
Ex-Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos were sentenced to 11 years and 12 years in prison, respectively, after a jury convicted them of shooting an unarmed suspect and then covering it up.
It happened on February 17, 2005. That's when Compean and Ramos encountered a suspicious van along the Texas-Mexico border.
The driver, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, abandoned the vehicle and tried to run into Mexico. Aldrete-Davila was smuggling drugs, and the van was loaded with more than 700 pounds of marijuana.
Compean fired at least 14 rounds and Ramos fired once, hitting Aldrete-Davila. The agents then collected the shell casings, failed to report the shooting, and filed reports that made no mention of the incident.
None of this is heroic, except to the anti-immigrant mob, which has been making excuses for Compean and Ramos while accusing U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office prosecuted the case, of being an agent of the Mexican government.
Recently, Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Richard L. Skinner admitted that officials in his office "misinformed" Republican members of Congress when they claimed to have proof that Compean and Ramos confessed their guilt and said that they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" before the incident.
But what does all this have to do with the price of whiskey in West Texas? Not a thing. It was the U.S. attorney's office, and not the Homeland Security Department, that brought this case. So, unless federal prosecutors lied to the court or defense attorneys, there is no reason for a pardon.
I've spoken to Sutton twice in the last couple of weeks, and he didn't strike me as some wild-eyed prosecutor. He insists that a lot of what is out there is "overheated rhetoric" from the ill-informed.
Much of that rhetoric belongs to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, (or as he is aptly described in this case, Dana "off-his-rocker"). The congressman has said that President Bush could be impeached if either Ramos or Compean meets his demise in prison.
As his name gets dragged through the mud, you'd think that Sutton might hold a grudge. Not so.
"I have a lot of sympathy for some of the folks who are worked up because the narrative that they read is so different from the reality of what the jury heard," Sutton told me.
But what about those unsympathetic Republican hacks, Minutemen vigilantes and conservative bloggers who are using this case to further their own agendas? For Sutton, it's a reminder that there is no substitute for the American justice system. While not perfect, that system is designed to dole out justice based on facts and law, not politics.
"It's why we litigate these things in a courtroom and not on cable television or the Internet," he said.
Be glad that's so.
more...
pictures Laetitia casta 2010 images
texcan
08-05 01:13 PM
I only read a few posts, but seems like there a lot of moral blasting and blame game going on.
I am in favor of fair practices, and on that principle everyone has right to speak their mind; irrespective of outcome of this thread, why is everyone fighting with each other ? We are here because of some common cause, and even though we have a common cause, all causes are not common.
I agree with you Rolling_Flood, this porting option can and actually has created trouble for many people who did not have a way to port priority dates. This is same issuse as "Labor substitution", I am glad labor substitution has been put to rest.
Rolling_flood, donot get annoyed or angry because of some comments ( everyone has a right to speak as you do). remember the saying " if you have a few enemies; that means you stood up for something some day".
Folks,
Please donot kill each other ...let people speak, this is least we can do for each other.
We are together for a reason, and we are using all reasons we can to fight with each other because we are together..right.
Please let people speak their thoughts and minds. donot start blame game (mine is bigger than yours)
Our focus should be on purpose and not get frustrated by process.
I am in favor of fair practices, and on that principle everyone has right to speak their mind; irrespective of outcome of this thread, why is everyone fighting with each other ? We are here because of some common cause, and even though we have a common cause, all causes are not common.
I agree with you Rolling_Flood, this porting option can and actually has created trouble for many people who did not have a way to port priority dates. This is same issuse as "Labor substitution", I am glad labor substitution has been put to rest.
Rolling_flood, donot get annoyed or angry because of some comments ( everyone has a right to speak as you do). remember the saying " if you have a few enemies; that means you stood up for something some day".
Folks,
Please donot kill each other ...let people speak, this is least we can do for each other.
We are together for a reason, and we are using all reasons we can to fight with each other because we are together..right.
Please let people speak their thoughts and minds. donot start blame game (mine is bigger than yours)
Our focus should be on purpose and not get frustrated by process.
dresses Laetitia Casta Ralph Lauren
pd_recapturing
08-05 10:55 AM
Rolling_Flood, great idea to benefit just U'r own GC cause. If you are positive about U'r logic why don't you go ahead and file a lawsuit. Looks like your true intention of creating this thread is to create a divide among IV members. Already members had a tough few weeks (in terms of unity) after the Aug bulletin. Now you are poking another rift.
The EB classification is for a future job. Since the person is qualified, he ports to EB2 midway so what. The GC is for a future job, and when the person gets his/her GC, he/she is qualified for that position at that time. So what is U'r logic??
If you want to truly fight the system them fight for a common basis for EB classification. There are cases where the same job title has been classified under all 3 categories. Example
Senior Programmer (say Bachelor's with 5 yrs exp)
Files under EB1 : because he/she came L1, qualification might be few yrs exp.
Files under EB2 : because he/she has 5 yrs of exp and the attorney was smart to classify it as EB2.
Files under EB3 : because of company policy or based on bad attorney advice (conservative approach).
The above example shows that if U'r company and attorney is smart U can get U'r GC faster.
If you are keen on doing a lawsuit why not
File one against USCIS for wasting thousands of visa's over the past few years, which is the source of this backlog.
Or file one against DOL for taking n number of years to get the LC done.
Or file one against 245 filers who clogged the USCIS system which is causing USCIS to be inefficient.
Man, you hit the nail on the head !!! Thats precise the point, I was trying to say in my last post (somewhere on page 1) ... The whole eb2/eb3 qualification, job requirements etc can be rigged easily by employer/lawyers ...There is no black and white in this game ..
The EB classification is for a future job. Since the person is qualified, he ports to EB2 midway so what. The GC is for a future job, and when the person gets his/her GC, he/she is qualified for that position at that time. So what is U'r logic??
If you want to truly fight the system them fight for a common basis for EB classification. There are cases where the same job title has been classified under all 3 categories. Example
Senior Programmer (say Bachelor's with 5 yrs exp)
Files under EB1 : because he/she came L1, qualification might be few yrs exp.
Files under EB2 : because he/she has 5 yrs of exp and the attorney was smart to classify it as EB2.
Files under EB3 : because of company policy or based on bad attorney advice (conservative approach).
The above example shows that if U'r company and attorney is smart U can get U'r GC faster.
If you are keen on doing a lawsuit why not
File one against USCIS for wasting thousands of visa's over the past few years, which is the source of this backlog.
Or file one against DOL for taking n number of years to get the LC done.
Or file one against 245 filers who clogged the USCIS system which is causing USCIS to be inefficient.
Man, you hit the nail on the head !!! Thats precise the point, I was trying to say in my last post (somewhere on page 1) ... The whole eb2/eb3 qualification, job requirements etc can be rigged easily by employer/lawyers ...There is no black and white in this game ..
more...
makeup Gallery :: Laetitia Casta ::
unitednations
03-26 05:29 PM
UN,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. As always, your time is highly appreciated.
So I assume in the Baltimore case, the 485 eventually did get approved (or if still pending, the USCIS atleast okayed the switch back to the petitioning employer despite the 140 revocation).
And yes, I am talking about cases where the 140 was revoked for genuine ability to pay reasons and not so the underlying labor could be substituted for someone else.
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. As always, your time is highly appreciated.
So I assume in the Baltimore case, the 485 eventually did get approved (or if still pending, the USCIS atleast okayed the switch back to the petitioning employer despite the 140 revocation).
And yes, I am talking about cases where the 140 was revoked for genuine ability to pay reasons and not so the underlying labor could be substituted for someone else.
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
girlfriend French born Laetitia Casta
chintu25
08-06 09:23 AM
A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village. An American tourist named Jon complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of His fish and asked how long it took him to catch them."Not very long," answered the Mexican.
"But then, why didn`t you stay out longer and catch more?" asked Jon.
The Mexican explained that His small catch was sufficient to meet His needs and those of His family.
Mr. Berg asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"
"I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and spent quality time with my wife. In the evenings I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. I have a full life."
Our intrepid Mr. Berg interrupted, "I have a M.B A. from Stanford and I can help you.You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat. With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New Jersey! From there you can direct your huge enterprise."
"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican.
"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied Jon.
"And after that?"
"Afterwards? That`s when it gets really interesting," answered Jon, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!"
"Millions? Really? And after that?"
"After that you`ll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, spend quality time with your wife, and spend your evenings drinking and playing the guitar with your friends!"
"But then, why didn`t you stay out longer and catch more?" asked Jon.
The Mexican explained that His small catch was sufficient to meet His needs and those of His family.
Mr. Berg asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"
"I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and spent quality time with my wife. In the evenings I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. I have a full life."
Our intrepid Mr. Berg interrupted, "I have a M.B A. from Stanford and I can help you.You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat. With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New Jersey! From there you can direct your huge enterprise."
"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican.
"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied Jon.
"And after that?"
"Afterwards? That`s when it gets really interesting," answered Jon, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!"
"Millions? Really? And after that?"
"After that you`ll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, spend quality time with your wife, and spend your evenings drinking and playing the guitar with your friends!"
hairstyles Laetitia Casta Photo
Macaca
02-29 07:21 AM
In Defense of Lobbying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803232.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Charles Krauthammer | WP, Feb 29
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
damialok
03-28 01:18 PM
Thanks for explaining the terms. You can go over 80% on the first loan but the lender will ask for PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance). Which is around 1% of the loan. To skirt around it, mortgage brokers break up the loan into first and second(80%+10%+10% down). This avoids the PMI and helps the buyer qualify for a bigger loan/house. Also PMI premiums are not tax-deductible.
unitednations
08-02 06:35 PM
Welcome back and Thanks very much for your valuable suggestions.
I have an important question for you and would request your suggestion:
Here's my situation: I am working for my current employer from last 6 years. My I-485 has been filed last week through my employer's attorney. My EB3 I-140 approved and I am on 9th year of h1-B. My H1-B expires in January next year. I have 3 other dependants on H4.
Now my current employer is trying to either fire me off or reduce my work hours to about 8 hrs / week.
What would be my best option to take decision?
1. Should I :
a. Stay home untill the expiry of 6 months and invoke AC21 after that? or
b. transfer my H1-B to some other employer and start working on H1-B and just wait for 6 months to invoke AC21?
2. Can my current employer reduce my hours legally? Meaning if they have to alter my H1-B to 8 hrs per week what will happen to my H1-B? Can i still able to transfer my H1-B to new emploer to work for 40Hrs/week if I want to?
The problem is- if they can't reduce my hours legally, I may be fired. And, if I get fired, they will revoke my H1-B on the same day but won't revoke my I-140 untill 6 months.
What do you suggest to help both me and my employer?
Thanks a lot for your valuabale suggestion and helping me out.
Once 485 is filed then you are authorized to stay in USA. If you want to work then you can use EAD; if you want to go in/out of USA then you need advance parole.
At the same time you can have h-1b.
Both things allow you to stay here.
Now; once 485 is filed; you do not need to comply with the terms and conditions of your non immigrant status. However; you shouldn't start working with another employer until you have EAD.
Technically; you could sit at home and do nothing; as long as you have intent to work with the employer until 485 is pending for more then six months and employer doesn't pull the plug before 180 days then you would be fine.
You could try to convert the h-1b to part time or transfer to another company.
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
I have an important question for you and would request your suggestion:
Here's my situation: I am working for my current employer from last 6 years. My I-485 has been filed last week through my employer's attorney. My EB3 I-140 approved and I am on 9th year of h1-B. My H1-B expires in January next year. I have 3 other dependants on H4.
Now my current employer is trying to either fire me off or reduce my work hours to about 8 hrs / week.
What would be my best option to take decision?
1. Should I :
a. Stay home untill the expiry of 6 months and invoke AC21 after that? or
b. transfer my H1-B to some other employer and start working on H1-B and just wait for 6 months to invoke AC21?
2. Can my current employer reduce my hours legally? Meaning if they have to alter my H1-B to 8 hrs per week what will happen to my H1-B? Can i still able to transfer my H1-B to new emploer to work for 40Hrs/week if I want to?
The problem is- if they can't reduce my hours legally, I may be fired. And, if I get fired, they will revoke my H1-B on the same day but won't revoke my I-140 untill 6 months.
What do you suggest to help both me and my employer?
Thanks a lot for your valuabale suggestion and helping me out.
Once 485 is filed then you are authorized to stay in USA. If you want to work then you can use EAD; if you want to go in/out of USA then you need advance parole.
At the same time you can have h-1b.
Both things allow you to stay here.
Now; once 485 is filed; you do not need to comply with the terms and conditions of your non immigrant status. However; you shouldn't start working with another employer until you have EAD.
Technically; you could sit at home and do nothing; as long as you have intent to work with the employer until 485 is pending for more then six months and employer doesn't pull the plug before 180 days then you would be fine.
You could try to convert the h-1b to part time or transfer to another company.
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment