gchopes
06-24 10:33 PM
Why are be debating 3 - 4 years rent vs own? As the subject indicates "long" term prospects of buying a home..we of all the ppl should know the meaning of the word "long" based on our "long" wait for PD (which I think should be renamed to retrogress date because I see nothing priority about it)..the point being lets debate 10 years rent vs own..as against 3-4...I think over a 10 year timeline the buyers would come out ahead of the renters..maybe not in CA but in other states that's quite likely..
wallpaper Free Online Games For Girls
gcisadawg
12-27 01:31 AM
Why do you want to involve the world in a matter between Pakistan and India?
I see what you are saying. But I don't think I agree with you.
The world probably doesn't give much of a damn about it. At the end of the day, a few million nuked and dead Pakistanis and Indians are not going to be the West's headache. They will be the headache for India and Pakistan. So, nukes DO impact the options.
Yes, there would be a few million nuked pakistanis and Indians. As you said, if the world doesn't give a damn why would Rice, Brown, US Military JCOS and a bunch of others visited India and urged it to restrain caution. I challnge the Indian Govt. to widely publish the statement " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"...See how the world reacts.
The world is more worried about Militants getting their hands on Nukes and has some confidence in India's caution. Madeline Albright recently said pakistan is like a migraine for the world. How many times we have seen stories where leaders after leader, strategists after strategists express concerns that Militants may get the nuke trigger. I believe the world has a stake in neutralizing Pak's Nukes. Do you believe the Nukes are partially controlled by US at present? Or is it Zardari who has the complete control?
I see what you are saying. But I don't think I agree with you.
The world probably doesn't give much of a damn about it. At the end of the day, a few million nuked and dead Pakistanis and Indians are not going to be the West's headache. They will be the headache for India and Pakistan. So, nukes DO impact the options.
Yes, there would be a few million nuked pakistanis and Indians. As you said, if the world doesn't give a damn why would Rice, Brown, US Military JCOS and a bunch of others visited India and urged it to restrain caution. I challnge the Indian Govt. to widely publish the statement " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"...See how the world reacts.
The world is more worried about Militants getting their hands on Nukes and has some confidence in India's caution. Madeline Albright recently said pakistan is like a migraine for the world. How many times we have seen stories where leaders after leader, strategists after strategists express concerns that Militants may get the nuke trigger. I believe the world has a stake in neutralizing Pak's Nukes. Do you believe the Nukes are partially controlled by US at present? Or is it Zardari who has the complete control?
ilwaiting
06-01 01:31 PM
I bet these guys do NOT know the facts more than the Congress. I bet Congress might have done lot more research into this immigration issue and its impact in all aspects than these news channels anchor's.
But I guess it time that these channels get the facts straight or no conservative would believe them!!!
Its also MSNBC. Just look at Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough.
If you hear Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, he sounds like the protege of Jeff Sessions.
However, one difference between Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs. Tucker supports(or atleast pretends to support) the legal variety.
Lou Dobbs openly opposes all immigration.
But I guess it time that these channels get the facts straight or no conservative would believe them!!!
Its also MSNBC. Just look at Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough.
If you hear Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, he sounds like the protege of Jeff Sessions.
However, one difference between Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs. Tucker supports(or atleast pretends to support) the legal variety.
Lou Dobbs openly opposes all immigration.
2011 games for girls online for
CantLeaveAmerica
03-25 01:59 AM
If you want to buy a home after you get your green card, mostly you will get after your retirement.
I don't want to feel "my home" when I am 68 and after my kids are out on their own. So I decided, dump the H1B, H4, 485, 131, 761, 797, 999, 888, I94, EAD, AP... AAD, CCD etc crap in trash, and bought the home.
I am happy. Even if I am asked to leave the country tomorrow, I just lock the door, throw the keys in trash and take off.
Who cares when life matters.
Awesome piece of advice..I've got to meet ya!!
I don't want to feel "my home" when I am 68 and after my kids are out on their own. So I decided, dump the H1B, H4, 485, 131, 761, 797, 999, 888, I94, EAD, AP... AAD, CCD etc crap in trash, and bought the home.
I am happy. Even if I am asked to leave the country tomorrow, I just lock the door, throw the keys in trash and take off.
Who cares when life matters.
Awesome piece of advice..I've got to meet ya!!
more...
pete
04-09 11:37 AM
The job description can be put in the way that points to your plus points. If you go the Harvard Biz. school you will have those. I dont think they want you to leave. There will be other avenues out there.
I am all for cleaning the system and reforming H1B - but I oppose an ill conceived half measure such as the one Senator Durbin/Grassley is proposing.
My main concern is two fold:
1. Let us assume I am a very bright individual and I am currently in Harvard. If I graduate from Harvard Business School, and I want to join McKenzie, can I do that? Can I ever be a Management consultant in US if I want to (read I as any random Joe who is not US citizen/GC holder)
2. Can I switch jobs within a couple of weeks if I need to (I refers to someone who works for a good company but perceives opportunities else where) - this is important as my competition (US citizen/GC holder) has no restriction in place for them. This is also important during recession when I might be a valuable asset to another company but the company cannot afford to wait.
My point is: definitely prevent abuse of the system, but not by putting more shackles on the hapless employee. Give the employee freedom to move anywhere for a certain period of time (could be 3 yrs renewable 2 times as per current H1b) and have strict penalties if this employee overstays visa etc.
Additionally, if employers abuse the system, send them to jail right away (and have whistle blower immigrant status protection). Make employers more accountable than they are today.
Just my 2 cents.....
I am all for cleaning the system and reforming H1B - but I oppose an ill conceived half measure such as the one Senator Durbin/Grassley is proposing.
My main concern is two fold:
1. Let us assume I am a very bright individual and I am currently in Harvard. If I graduate from Harvard Business School, and I want to join McKenzie, can I do that? Can I ever be a Management consultant in US if I want to (read I as any random Joe who is not US citizen/GC holder)
2. Can I switch jobs within a couple of weeks if I need to (I refers to someone who works for a good company but perceives opportunities else where) - this is important as my competition (US citizen/GC holder) has no restriction in place for them. This is also important during recession when I might be a valuable asset to another company but the company cannot afford to wait.
My point is: definitely prevent abuse of the system, but not by putting more shackles on the hapless employee. Give the employee freedom to move anywhere for a certain period of time (could be 3 yrs renewable 2 times as per current H1b) and have strict penalties if this employee overstays visa etc.
Additionally, if employers abuse the system, send them to jail right away (and have whistle blower immigrant status protection). Make employers more accountable than they are today.
Just my 2 cents.....
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."
more...
srkamath
07-13 02:04 PM
First off, we are here to get our GC faster so the effort is commendable. ...........
The old interpretation was too complex to be correct..... between 2000 and 2007 it resulted in EB-2 getting shortchanged. EB3 approvals were more than DOUBLE of EB2 during those years.
2000 - 2007 Average
33,000 EB2 / year
83,000 EB3 / year
There are simply too many EB3 cases compared to the visas available.
EB2 may have been less retrogressed the last 3 years if the DOS had interpreted the law correctly. Visa numbers were mean to - SPREAD OUT, THEN SPILLED OVER downwards.
Prior to April-08, i don't ever EB2 applicants complaining about getting shortchanged - they understand the pain of someone having to wait for a decade to get a GC and probably didn't mind getting shortchanged.
Again - this is not about fairness, justice, merits of the applicants. It is about giving US employers the ability to fill posts when & where Americans are not available or willing.
The old interpretation was too complex to be correct..... between 2000 and 2007 it resulted in EB-2 getting shortchanged. EB3 approvals were more than DOUBLE of EB2 during those years.
2000 - 2007 Average
33,000 EB2 / year
83,000 EB3 / year
There are simply too many EB3 cases compared to the visas available.
EB2 may have been less retrogressed the last 3 years if the DOS had interpreted the law correctly. Visa numbers were mean to - SPREAD OUT, THEN SPILLED OVER downwards.
Prior to April-08, i don't ever EB2 applicants complaining about getting shortchanged - they understand the pain of someone having to wait for a decade to get a GC and probably didn't mind getting shortchanged.
Again - this is not about fairness, justice, merits of the applicants. It is about giving US employers the ability to fill posts when & where Americans are not available or willing.
2010 dresses girls games online.
paskal
07-08 08:46 PM
I have been here 11 years. 4 different employers.
I have all my returns and W2's
why in the world would i keep every paystub?
makes no sense. of course little does.
UN thanks for the comments.
any predictions on where we are headed? my vested interest is in EB2 india...
btw why is everyone presuming that the 60,000 approvals went to India and China? EB3 ROW is retrogressed- all the extra numbers could have gone there. that would in any case be all the better for india/china in the longer term- the faster that backlog is finished, the greater the chance india/china lines will show meaningful movement.
also did you notice the cantwell-kyl compromise amendment in the failed CIR 2007 had a provision for 485 filing w/o visa numbers current?
I have all my returns and W2's
why in the world would i keep every paystub?
makes no sense. of course little does.
UN thanks for the comments.
any predictions on where we are headed? my vested interest is in EB2 india...
btw why is everyone presuming that the 60,000 approvals went to India and China? EB3 ROW is retrogressed- all the extra numbers could have gone there. that would in any case be all the better for india/china in the longer term- the faster that backlog is finished, the greater the chance india/china lines will show meaningful movement.
also did you notice the cantwell-kyl compromise amendment in the failed CIR 2007 had a provision for 485 filing w/o visa numbers current?
more...
sanju
05-15 05:42 AM
hey guys,
M new to this. I have applied for a H1 B this year ....i went thru the pdf on bill S 1035 ...& it states the following:
Section 2(e) Prohibition of Outplacement
1. Employer cannot place, outsource, lease, or otherwise contract for the
placement of an employee on H-1B. (This prohibits any consulting work for
an employee on H-1B).
2. This applies to all the application filed after the enactment of this bill.
Does it mean that all existing consulting work will also be in danger??
YES
M a bit confused as point 2 states that it will be for all applications after the enactment of the bill. Does that affect H1-b holders frm this year itself??
YES
Durbin-Grassley going after 9 firms.
http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=6514384&nav=0w0v
U.S. Senators question companies about visas
Two US senators are questioning several companies about their use of a visa program for highly skilled workers. Senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Dick Durbin of Illinois are focusing on nine companies -- several of them foreign-based. Those companies used nearly 20,000 of the 75,000 H-One-B visas that were available last year. H-One-B visas are for high-skilled workers and are heavily used in the high-tech industry. The industry has long complained that too few visas are available. Grassley and Durbin, both on the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, sent letters to the nine companies asking questions about visa use, wages and layoffs. The top users were identified with statistics from Citizenship and Immigration Services. The letters, posted on Grassley's Web site, were addressed to:
Infosys Technologies Limited in Freemont, California
Wipro Limited of Mountainview, California
Tata Consultancy Services Limited of Arlington, Virginia
Saytam Computer Services Limited of Andhra Pradesh, India
Patni Computer Systems of Mumbai, India
Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited of Mumbai, India
I-Flex Solutions of Mumbai, India
Tech Mahindra Americas of Englewood, Colorado and
Mphasis Corporation of Bangalore, India
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a letter from Sen. Durbin and Grassley to these companies
http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2007/05142007.pdf
M new to this. I have applied for a H1 B this year ....i went thru the pdf on bill S 1035 ...& it states the following:
Section 2(e) Prohibition of Outplacement
1. Employer cannot place, outsource, lease, or otherwise contract for the
placement of an employee on H-1B. (This prohibits any consulting work for
an employee on H-1B).
2. This applies to all the application filed after the enactment of this bill.
Does it mean that all existing consulting work will also be in danger??
YES
M a bit confused as point 2 states that it will be for all applications after the enactment of the bill. Does that affect H1-b holders frm this year itself??
YES
Durbin-Grassley going after 9 firms.
http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=6514384&nav=0w0v
U.S. Senators question companies about visas
Two US senators are questioning several companies about their use of a visa program for highly skilled workers. Senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Dick Durbin of Illinois are focusing on nine companies -- several of them foreign-based. Those companies used nearly 20,000 of the 75,000 H-One-B visas that were available last year. H-One-B visas are for high-skilled workers and are heavily used in the high-tech industry. The industry has long complained that too few visas are available. Grassley and Durbin, both on the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, sent letters to the nine companies asking questions about visa use, wages and layoffs. The top users were identified with statistics from Citizenship and Immigration Services. The letters, posted on Grassley's Web site, were addressed to:
Infosys Technologies Limited in Freemont, California
Wipro Limited of Mountainview, California
Tata Consultancy Services Limited of Arlington, Virginia
Saytam Computer Services Limited of Andhra Pradesh, India
Patni Computer Systems of Mumbai, India
Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited of Mumbai, India
I-Flex Solutions of Mumbai, India
Tech Mahindra Americas of Englewood, Colorado and
Mphasis Corporation of Bangalore, India
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a letter from Sen. Durbin and Grassley to these companies
http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2007/05142007.pdf
hair Painting Games for Girls
sayantan76
12-29 11:20 PM
I agree with you. British occupied USA and India at around same time (1600) and USA got it's independence by 1789 and we had to wait until 1947. UK was very badly hurt post second world war and had to borrow money heavily from USA to pay for veterans and keep war time employment rates. Clement Atlee in his wisdom thought that UK can not maintain it's empire any longer and let go of colonies. Winston Churchill was opposed to this but could not prevail over Atlee. I admire Mahatma immensely. But let us not kid ourselves that we got independence solely based on peaceful independence struggle. To all those peaceniks, if you think non-violence is such a great weapon, why can't we scratch the whole army and use that massive defence budget for something else? If we are maintaining an army, we are going to use it some time.
at the risk of adding to this "no longer relevant" thread - there is a huge difference between US and India gaining independence.....in case of the former - it was some Britishers now settled in America fighting other Britishers (loyalists to the throne) for autonomy and independence......
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
at the risk of adding to this "no longer relevant" thread - there is a huge difference between US and India gaining independence.....in case of the former - it was some Britishers now settled in America fighting other Britishers (loyalists to the throne) for autonomy and independence......
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
more...
nojoke
01-03 03:36 AM
Screw Dawood Ibrahim. He is the past.
What is important right now is to get hold of the masterminds of Bombay in a transparent and credible manner. That would be in the long term self-interest of Pakistan (and India, and the world).
Tomorrow the Bombay attack is old too. You are delusional and good making up reasons.:D:D:D:D:D
How about an apology for what your country men did as a first step? Then we will consider your advice about what we should do. You are so good at giving advice to people who suffered at your country men's(like don't start war etc) hands and yet you don't own any responsibility.
What is important right now is to get hold of the masterminds of Bombay in a transparent and credible manner. That would be in the long term self-interest of Pakistan (and India, and the world).
Tomorrow the Bombay attack is old too. You are delusional and good making up reasons.:D:D:D:D:D
How about an apology for what your country men did as a first step? Then we will consider your advice about what we should do. You are so good at giving advice to people who suffered at your country men's(like don't start war etc) hands and yet you don't own any responsibility.
hot games for girls online for
Macaca
03-19 01:23 PM
Lobbying in a Web World (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801138.html)
Speaking of doing better on the Hill, sign up now for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's April 3 lobbying workshop: "Getting Heard on Capitol Hill." It's part of a four-workshop series, "Winning in a Web World; Online Strategies for Grass-Roots Advocacy." (If you don't yet have grass roots, you can find out how to create them. )
The three panels on April 3 include one about using the Internet and another on "activating the grass roots." There's also a Q&A session on how lobbying reforms and new Federal Election Commission laws might affect your online efforts.
This being the Chamber of Commerce, the panelists are weighted toward the conservative end: former Bush aide Tucker Eskew, who had the spectacular title of White House director of global communications, and Stephen Hoersting, former general counsel at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. But there's also Winnie Stachelberg, former political director of the Human Rights Campaign who's now at the Center for American Progress, and some media folks and academics.
Speaking of doing better on the Hill, sign up now for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's April 3 lobbying workshop: "Getting Heard on Capitol Hill." It's part of a four-workshop series, "Winning in a Web World; Online Strategies for Grass-Roots Advocacy." (If you don't yet have grass roots, you can find out how to create them. )
The three panels on April 3 include one about using the Internet and another on "activating the grass roots." There's also a Q&A session on how lobbying reforms and new Federal Election Commission laws might affect your online efforts.
This being the Chamber of Commerce, the panelists are weighted toward the conservative end: former Bush aide Tucker Eskew, who had the spectacular title of White House director of global communications, and Stephen Hoersting, former general counsel at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. But there's also Winnie Stachelberg, former political director of the Human Rights Campaign who's now at the Center for American Progress, and some media folks and academics.
more...
house Closed. Disney Channel Free
nojoke
04-07 04:44 PM
I firmly believe in the Contrarian Theory. When speculators run, its time to get in and BUY. I owned two homes and I am in the process to getting a third one. I would be a good candidate for those TV shows on HGTv/TLC. I buy a home build equity(through appreciation) and flip. This will get me closer to my DREAM home. I cannot see myself in a home for more than 5 years.
The inventory glut in (SF Bay Area) is not desirable, they talk about east contra-costa and south Santa Clara but there are not much available in core bay-area. The inventory is basically non-desirable.
Simple math, just estimate the number of immigrants that will be ready to buy a home in SF Bay. Just look at the inventory in desirable neighborhoods. They dont match.
Stretching (financially) yourself is always uncomfortable but it can reap you huge dividends. If you are not comfortable, then I would say keep aside monthly payments that would cover 6 months and your home should be sold incase you need to get out of it.
No other investment in US(for individuals) is as leveraged as homes/real-estate. You invest 5% and reap the benefits(or losses) of the rest.
You sound like a realtor. Do you know all those flipping shows in HGTV/TLC are staged? Anyway here is the real story about where investment in housing is heading. There are thousands of real stories like this in the newspapers.
-----------------------------
“Pamela Khamo began a career as a real estate agent in 2002 after selling her La Mesa coffee shop. By 2005, her annual income swelled to $360,000, according to bankruptcy records.”
“Khamo had begun buying investment properties a year or so earlier. In all, Khamo ended up with 13 properties at the peak, she said. Income from renting the properties fell well short of covering the mortgages. But the commissions she earned on the purchases helped offset the rental shortfall, she said.”
“Things started to unravel early last year. The slumping real estate market cut her income in 2007 to $180,000, bankruptcy records show. She became ill for a time. Meanwhile, her adjustable mortgages started to reset…sometimes doubling her monthly payments.”
“Khamo scrambled to refinance. She sought loan modifications from banks. But lenders had tightened standards. They wanted more equity in the properties than Khamo had, she said.”
“‘I did buy at the height of the market, unfortunately,’ she said.”
“Khamo filed for bankruptcy in February. She has lost the bulk of the properties to lenders already, according to county deed and bankruptcy court records. She expects to lose all of them. The East County home in which she and her husband reside has been taken back by the bank – although the family still lives there for now, she said.”
“‘It took six years to build everything up and six months to lose it,’ she said.”
The inventory glut in (SF Bay Area) is not desirable, they talk about east contra-costa and south Santa Clara but there are not much available in core bay-area. The inventory is basically non-desirable.
Simple math, just estimate the number of immigrants that will be ready to buy a home in SF Bay. Just look at the inventory in desirable neighborhoods. They dont match.
Stretching (financially) yourself is always uncomfortable but it can reap you huge dividends. If you are not comfortable, then I would say keep aside monthly payments that would cover 6 months and your home should be sold incase you need to get out of it.
No other investment in US(for individuals) is as leveraged as homes/real-estate. You invest 5% and reap the benefits(or losses) of the rest.
You sound like a realtor. Do you know all those flipping shows in HGTV/TLC are staged? Anyway here is the real story about where investment in housing is heading. There are thousands of real stories like this in the newspapers.
-----------------------------
“Pamela Khamo began a career as a real estate agent in 2002 after selling her La Mesa coffee shop. By 2005, her annual income swelled to $360,000, according to bankruptcy records.”
“Khamo had begun buying investment properties a year or so earlier. In all, Khamo ended up with 13 properties at the peak, she said. Income from renting the properties fell well short of covering the mortgages. But the commissions she earned on the purchases helped offset the rental shortfall, she said.”
“Things started to unravel early last year. The slumping real estate market cut her income in 2007 to $180,000, bankruptcy records show. She became ill for a time. Meanwhile, her adjustable mortgages started to reset…sometimes doubling her monthly payments.”
“Khamo scrambled to refinance. She sought loan modifications from banks. But lenders had tightened standards. They wanted more equity in the properties than Khamo had, she said.”
“‘I did buy at the height of the market, unfortunately,’ she said.”
“Khamo filed for bankruptcy in February. She has lost the bulk of the properties to lenders already, according to county deed and bankruptcy court records. She expects to lose all of them. The East County home in which she and her husband reside has been taken back by the bank – although the family still lives there for now, she said.”
“‘It took six years to build everything up and six months to lose it,’ she said.”
tattoo games for girls online for
nogc_noproblem
08-26 11:09 PM
Three mischievous old Grandmas were sitting on a bench outside a nursing home...
... when an old Grandpa walked by. And one of the old Grandmas yelled out saying, "We bet we can tell exactly how old you are." The old man said, "There is no way you can guess it, you old fools."
One of the old Grandmas said, "Sure we can! Just drop your pants and under shorts and we can tell your exact age."
Embarrassed just a little, but anxious to prove they couldn't do it, he dropped his drawers.
The Grandmas asked him to first turn around a couple of times and to jump up and down several times.
Then they all piped up and said, "You're 87 years old!"
Standing with his pants down around his ankles, the old gent asked, "How in the world did you guess?"
Slapping their knees and grinning from ear to ear, the three old ladies happily yelled in unison - - "We were at your birthday party yesterday!"
... when an old Grandpa walked by. And one of the old Grandmas yelled out saying, "We bet we can tell exactly how old you are." The old man said, "There is no way you can guess it, you old fools."
One of the old Grandmas said, "Sure we can! Just drop your pants and under shorts and we can tell your exact age."
Embarrassed just a little, but anxious to prove they couldn't do it, he dropped his drawers.
The Grandmas asked him to first turn around a couple of times and to jump up and down several times.
Then they all piped up and said, "You're 87 years old!"
Standing with his pants down around his ankles, the old gent asked, "How in the world did you guess?"
Slapping their knees and grinning from ear to ear, the three old ladies happily yelled in unison - - "We were at your birthday party yesterday!"
more...
pictures free girls games online.
texcan
08-06 04:35 PM
Two guys are moving about in a supermarket when their carts collide.
One says to the other, "I'm sorry - I was looking for my wife."
"What a coincidence, so am I, and I'm getting a little desperate."
"Well, maybe I can help you. What does your wife look like?"
"She's tall, with long hair, long legs, firm boobs and a tight ass.
What's your wife look like?"
"Never mind, let's look for yours!"
This reminds me of ....priority porting circus....
Eb2 & Eb3 guys are moving about in a Green ...
looking for a quick check out line ........
....
....
Eb2 says says mine is "quick, fast, exciting..." whats you line looks like....
Eb3 says... "never mind lets look for yours "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lion and Monkey joke extensions have been killing me here...
i swear, i never had so much fun on this site...ever. Great work..lets keep them coming.
One says to the other, "I'm sorry - I was looking for my wife."
"What a coincidence, so am I, and I'm getting a little desperate."
"Well, maybe I can help you. What does your wife look like?"
"She's tall, with long hair, long legs, firm boobs and a tight ass.
What's your wife look like?"
"Never mind, let's look for yours!"
This reminds me of ....priority porting circus....
Eb2 & Eb3 guys are moving about in a Green ...
looking for a quick check out line ........
....
....
Eb2 says says mine is "quick, fast, exciting..." whats you line looks like....
Eb3 says... "never mind lets look for yours "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lion and Monkey joke extensions have been killing me here...
i swear, i never had so much fun on this site...ever. Great work..lets keep them coming.
dresses Cameo Games: Free games for
sc3
08-05 06:48 PM
Here we go again. EB2 is fraud, they are all really EB3, but guess what? All the bright EB3s are really EB2, they are all suffering needlesly. Right?
Here's my take (I don't even believe it but I think you deserve to hear it)- I think EB3s like you are the real frauds. If immigration law were followed to the T, plenty of EB3s would never get a GC. So many Americans with basic skills that can do silly coding - hell a monkey can do it. So enjoy what you have.
How did you like the sound of that pal? If it felt wrong and offensive, then first shut your own gob and stop posting crap about "most EB2s".
Just fyi I have been here loger than you- by quite a lot. So if that's the qualification, I have "seen" a lot too.
I dont know whom you are responding to but...
So Eb2 does not do silly coding??!!. Get a reality check. The jobs that Eb3 and EB2 does are pretty much the same. The same monkey can do the jobs of EB2 too, so I fail to see you point.
Also, the law does not just state that there are no qualified -- there is also a willing clause. There might be Americans who can do the job, but such Americans may not want to relocate etc.
Over the lot of arguments I have seen Eb2 claiming to be superior, please disabuse yourselves of it. I am Eb3, but I lord over Eb2, and the same EB2s lord over me depending on particular expertise and problem that is being solved, that is business. No, I am not talking about telling EB2s how to switch on their computers. I am talking about hardcore technical issues.
Here's my take (I don't even believe it but I think you deserve to hear it)- I think EB3s like you are the real frauds. If immigration law were followed to the T, plenty of EB3s would never get a GC. So many Americans with basic skills that can do silly coding - hell a monkey can do it. So enjoy what you have.
How did you like the sound of that pal? If it felt wrong and offensive, then first shut your own gob and stop posting crap about "most EB2s".
Just fyi I have been here loger than you- by quite a lot. So if that's the qualification, I have "seen" a lot too.
I dont know whom you are responding to but...
So Eb2 does not do silly coding??!!. Get a reality check. The jobs that Eb3 and EB2 does are pretty much the same. The same monkey can do the jobs of EB2 too, so I fail to see you point.
Also, the law does not just state that there are no qualified -- there is also a willing clause. There might be Americans who can do the job, but such Americans may not want to relocate etc.
Over the lot of arguments I have seen Eb2 claiming to be superior, please disabuse yourselves of it. I am Eb3, but I lord over Eb2, and the same EB2s lord over me depending on particular expertise and problem that is being solved, that is business. No, I am not talking about telling EB2s how to switch on their computers. I am talking about hardcore technical issues.
more...
makeup online girls games,free dress
srkamath
07-13 02:04 PM
First off, we are here to get our GC faster so the effort is commendable. ...........
The old interpretation was too complex to be correct..... between 2000 and 2007 it resulted in EB-2 getting shortchanged. EB3 approvals were more than DOUBLE of EB2 during those years.
2000 - 2007 Average
33,000 EB2 / year
83,000 EB3 / year
There are simply too many EB3 cases compared to the visas available.
EB2 may have been less retrogressed the last 3 years if the DOS had interpreted the law correctly. Visa numbers were mean to - SPREAD OUT, THEN SPILLED OVER downwards.
Prior to April-08, i don't ever EB2 applicants complaining about getting shortchanged - they understand the pain of someone having to wait for a decade to get a GC and probably didn't mind getting shortchanged.
Again - this is not about fairness, justice, merits of the applicants. It is about giving US employers the ability to fill posts when & where Americans are not available or willing.
The old interpretation was too complex to be correct..... between 2000 and 2007 it resulted in EB-2 getting shortchanged. EB3 approvals were more than DOUBLE of EB2 during those years.
2000 - 2007 Average
33,000 EB2 / year
83,000 EB3 / year
There are simply too many EB3 cases compared to the visas available.
EB2 may have been less retrogressed the last 3 years if the DOS had interpreted the law correctly. Visa numbers were mean to - SPREAD OUT, THEN SPILLED OVER downwards.
Prior to April-08, i don't ever EB2 applicants complaining about getting shortchanged - they understand the pain of someone having to wait for a decade to get a GC and probably didn't mind getting shortchanged.
Again - this is not about fairness, justice, merits of the applicants. It is about giving US employers the ability to fill posts when & where Americans are not available or willing.
girlfriend These games will be sure very
gcgreen
08-06 12:59 PM
Same as you, I saw your post and couldn't help responding :-)
For what its worth, I too have a PhD, and one would generally agree my academic credentials are impeccable, etc. etc. (Honest, I am not tooting my own horn)
But I think Rolling Flood is wrong. Way off base. The reason is simple. Work experience COUNTS. You are a fresh Ph.D. graduate, but believe me even you will feel the difference 5 years down the line (3 years in your case :-). If a person gains experience, the USCIS believes that allows a person to be eligible for a job that falls under EB2 classification.
Now as a very separate and distinct matter, the law says if a person already has a prior approved I140, then that priority date rules. That is the law.
Now the logical conclusion of the two separate concepts above is that if a person is the beneficiary for an EB2 job, which by dint of experience, he/she simply is per USCIS and most companies (which is why people get promoted to senior/management positions :-), then that person is allowed by law to port their priority date.
What RollingFlood and the other so-called (RollingFlood: I am not calling you one, but others have called you something similar ;-) smarter-than-thous are making a mistake on is to conflate two separate issues and making a ego-oriented mess in the process. Make no mistake, RollingFlood is very clear in delineating the skill of a person from the job requirements, which many of the EB3 IVians appear to have missed. But nonetheless, his logic is a bit mixed up on the law. It is incontrovertible (assuming that we have correct citations) that the language of the law is saying that an earlier priority date rules. The only issue is whether 5 years or more of experience required for a job makes that job worthy of an EB2 classification. RollingFlood has not explained why a job that requires 5 years or more experience in addition to a B.S. does not make it eligible for EB2. Without that he is likely going to waste a lot of money on lawyers.
I agree with "singhsa".
I was reading through this thread and couldn't help replying.
Before i voice my opinion, i would like to mention that I have a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering (2002-2006 from a very reputed univ. in the US). My husband's employer (non-IT) had applied for his GC in EB3 - in 2005 which makes sense since the job required a B.S (Even though he was MS and was working for this company since 2002). We have our 485s filed and are using our APs/EADs. Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005. The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
Having said that, I completely understand what "rolling flood" is trying to say. And I also agree to what his point of view is. When a person who initially agreed to apply with EB3, changes his mind/company/ or whatever and wants to apply in EB2, he should theoretically start over. Why is it reasonable that he/she cuts in line ahead of a person who was already there. There is a reason why these categories are formed.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US.
EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
For what its worth, I too have a PhD, and one would generally agree my academic credentials are impeccable, etc. etc. (Honest, I am not tooting my own horn)
But I think Rolling Flood is wrong. Way off base. The reason is simple. Work experience COUNTS. You are a fresh Ph.D. graduate, but believe me even you will feel the difference 5 years down the line (3 years in your case :-). If a person gains experience, the USCIS believes that allows a person to be eligible for a job that falls under EB2 classification.
Now as a very separate and distinct matter, the law says if a person already has a prior approved I140, then that priority date rules. That is the law.
Now the logical conclusion of the two separate concepts above is that if a person is the beneficiary for an EB2 job, which by dint of experience, he/she simply is per USCIS and most companies (which is why people get promoted to senior/management positions :-), then that person is allowed by law to port their priority date.
What RollingFlood and the other so-called (RollingFlood: I am not calling you one, but others have called you something similar ;-) smarter-than-thous are making a mistake on is to conflate two separate issues and making a ego-oriented mess in the process. Make no mistake, RollingFlood is very clear in delineating the skill of a person from the job requirements, which many of the EB3 IVians appear to have missed. But nonetheless, his logic is a bit mixed up on the law. It is incontrovertible (assuming that we have correct citations) that the language of the law is saying that an earlier priority date rules. The only issue is whether 5 years or more of experience required for a job makes that job worthy of an EB2 classification. RollingFlood has not explained why a job that requires 5 years or more experience in addition to a B.S. does not make it eligible for EB2. Without that he is likely going to waste a lot of money on lawyers.
I agree with "singhsa".
I was reading through this thread and couldn't help replying.
Before i voice my opinion, i would like to mention that I have a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering (2002-2006 from a very reputed univ. in the US). My husband's employer (non-IT) had applied for his GC in EB3 - in 2005 which makes sense since the job required a B.S (Even though he was MS and was working for this company since 2002). We have our 485s filed and are using our APs/EADs. Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005. The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
Having said that, I completely understand what "rolling flood" is trying to say. And I also agree to what his point of view is. When a person who initially agreed to apply with EB3, changes his mind/company/ or whatever and wants to apply in EB2, he should theoretically start over. Why is it reasonable that he/she cuts in line ahead of a person who was already there. There is a reason why these categories are formed.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US.
EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
hairstyles fun action games for girls,
number30
03-26 06:09 PM
What ended up happening? Did he refile?
Also, in that situation, if he had managed to get an offer letter from a third company, would the USCIS have then okayed it?
No He went back to India and came with new H1. It was two weeks short of 180 days. He could not use the AC-21. He has applied with Labor from different employer and case is stll pending. Murthy handled his case.
Also, in that situation, if he had managed to get an offer letter from a third company, would the USCIS have then okayed it?
No He went back to India and came with new H1. It was two weeks short of 180 days. He could not use the AC-21. He has applied with Labor from different employer and case is stll pending. Murthy handled his case.
sk2006
06-05 02:41 PM
...Who would have thought real estate would ever crash ?. At least i never saw this coming and i guess most of those smart investors/economists did not see this coming.
Infact many SAW it coming..
In 2005 when every body I knew, was buying houses to avoid being 'Priced out' of the housing market, I too thought of buying. So I started to do some reading on the world wide web. I realized that many bloggers and experts are warning people of the bubble and warning of a hard crash coming and they supported their claims with data!
Such people were not heard and covered by main stream media like CNN or CNBS channel.
Most people I know talked to their wives or real estate agents and bought houses.
Infact many SAW it coming..
In 2005 when every body I knew, was buying houses to avoid being 'Priced out' of the housing market, I too thought of buying. So I started to do some reading on the world wide web. I realized that many bloggers and experts are warning people of the bubble and warning of a hard crash coming and they supported their claims with data!
Such people were not heard and covered by main stream media like CNN or CNBS channel.
Most people I know talked to their wives or real estate agents and bought houses.
sc3
08-05 08:07 PM
I have seen you post before, and with this post you lost some of my respect. You need to be rational and coherent if you want to debate the issue. Not emotional and silly.
If I read correctly, every EB3 here thinks that most EB2 is fraud. Sounds like Numbers USA and PG talk to me. I'd like to remind you that thsoe folks whose language you are now talking, are even more opposed to EB3. take some time and read what they have to say about EB3 in the context of "best and brightest". I suggest seriously thinking before posting.
Emotional and silly? I dont think so. This thread talks about stopping a legal option available to lots. The arguments provided have no legal grounding.
Also, your claim that "in US Bachelors degree is the considered the basic or primary degree" is not supported by law (show me the law which states as such, and I will shut up). It is again subjective. There are a lot of "Associate degree" etc, so classification of "basic degree" is nothing by subjective. As I said before, what you consider "Advanced" need not be a advanced degree for another, and the law never explicitly talks about what is meant by "Advanced". It is USCIS guidance on what it considers to be "advanced degree".
The thread says we should disallow Eb3's refiling because it is unfair, I am saying jumping jobs without getting GC is unfair. Again subjective... what you consider unfair maybe very different from what I consider unfair. The law allows for both, EB3 refiling, as well as Ac21 portability. We cant do anything about it -- none of these are basis for lawsuits wants it to be.
"You have a advanced degree that no Bachelors can do... that is the law"
So now you take recourse to the law, when you support filing a lawsuit for something written in law. Furthermore, just guessing here, looks like you are in medicinal field, or something that affects human life. Well, that law is not universal. There are other countries where the same job can be done by a bachelors. To some extent such "advanced degree" requirements are put in place by lobbies, or due to some other constraints.
No, every EB3 does not think EB2 is fraud. It is EB2s that think EB3s can be done by anyone pulled off the street. Every occupation needs skills, just because someone has an advanced degree mean that all other work can be done by monkeys.
And BTW: Someone gave me a neg, saying I am disparaging EB2 by calling them Monkeys. No I did not do that, some other guys brought it on themselves when they claimed EB3 work can be done by monkeys. I just said, if EB3 work can be done by monkeys, so can EB2 work. Read before you leave comments to others.
If I read correctly, every EB3 here thinks that most EB2 is fraud. Sounds like Numbers USA and PG talk to me. I'd like to remind you that thsoe folks whose language you are now talking, are even more opposed to EB3. take some time and read what they have to say about EB3 in the context of "best and brightest". I suggest seriously thinking before posting.
Emotional and silly? I dont think so. This thread talks about stopping a legal option available to lots. The arguments provided have no legal grounding.
Also, your claim that "in US Bachelors degree is the considered the basic or primary degree" is not supported by law (show me the law which states as such, and I will shut up). It is again subjective. There are a lot of "Associate degree" etc, so classification of "basic degree" is nothing by subjective. As I said before, what you consider "Advanced" need not be a advanced degree for another, and the law never explicitly talks about what is meant by "Advanced". It is USCIS guidance on what it considers to be "advanced degree".
The thread says we should disallow Eb3's refiling because it is unfair, I am saying jumping jobs without getting GC is unfair. Again subjective... what you consider unfair maybe very different from what I consider unfair. The law allows for both, EB3 refiling, as well as Ac21 portability. We cant do anything about it -- none of these are basis for lawsuits wants it to be.
"You have a advanced degree that no Bachelors can do... that is the law"
So now you take recourse to the law, when you support filing a lawsuit for something written in law. Furthermore, just guessing here, looks like you are in medicinal field, or something that affects human life. Well, that law is not universal. There are other countries where the same job can be done by a bachelors. To some extent such "advanced degree" requirements are put in place by lobbies, or due to some other constraints.
No, every EB3 does not think EB2 is fraud. It is EB2s that think EB3s can be done by anyone pulled off the street. Every occupation needs skills, just because someone has an advanced degree mean that all other work can be done by monkeys.
And BTW: Someone gave me a neg, saying I am disparaging EB2 by calling them Monkeys. No I did not do that, some other guys brought it on themselves when they claimed EB3 work can be done by monkeys. I just said, if EB3 work can be done by monkeys, so can EB2 work. Read before you leave comments to others.
