Macaca
09-27 12:06 PM
In defense of lobbying (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/in-defense-of-l.html) This country�s Founders actually set up a system to encourage the petitioning of government. And yes, like it or not, that means lobbyists have the same claims to the First Amendment as our free press does By Ross K. Baker | USA Today, sep 27, 2007
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
There was a moment in one of the recent Democratic debates in which former senator John Edwards practically accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of being in league with the devil. For some time, he had been attacking her for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Now, using the occasion of a just-passed lobbying reform bill awaiting the signature of a skeptical president, he exceeded even his previous needling of her by suggesting guilt-by-association. Turning to the audience, he charged that lobbyists, such as those who contribute to Clinton, "rig the system against all of you (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html?_r=1&ex=1187841600&en=a9c739db3da26fdf&ei=5070&oref=slogin)."
Edwards' accusations deftly played into a belief common even among well-educated Americans that lobbying, if not actually illegal, is a blot on American politics. The problem with this belief is that it is misinformed.
It might come as a surprise to most people that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602251.html) under the hallowed First Amendment. After the Founding Fathers cast the cloak of protection over freedom of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble, they added a category that could not be infringed upon by the federal government: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)."
Few contemporary efforts to influence government action come by way of a formal petition. But the idea of giving citizens access to government was seen by the writers of the Constitution as something worth safeguarding. And it is, indeed, worth safeguarding because every group in America, at one time or another, has got a gripe and turns to Congress or the federal bureaucracy.
Groups engaged in activities that might seem wholly unconnected with politics, such as the American Automobile Association (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_H.htm) (the folks who get your car started on cold mornings), maintain a presence in Washington to monitor what goes on in Congress. When lawmakers and congressional staffers return from their summer recess, the army of lobbyists storms Washington alongside them.
Religious and military organizations, despite the apolitical nature of our armed forces and the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, stick very close to Congress. So close are the Methodists (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=gpYbdG8nTTbstJWZbHF4nQ%3d%3d&longitude=UTH%2fxgxU3NJ%2fZzEipoIpSw%3d%3d&name=General%20Board%2dGlbl%20Ministries&country=US&address=100%20Maryland%20Ave%20NE%20%23%20315&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d548%2d4002&spurl=0&&q=The%20United%20Methodist%20General%20Board%20of% 20Church%20and%20Society&qc=%28All%29%20Places%20Of%20Worship) and the Reserve Officers Association (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=2jypmtPMGHqb5z8DqMKpow%3d%3d&longitude=CIpOYIVGteZ%2bBzAf6jdV1Q%3d%3d&name=Reserve%20Officers%20Assn%20of%20US&country=US&address=101%20Constitution%20Ave%20NE&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d479%2d2221&spurl=0&&q=Reserve%20Officers%20Association&qc=Associations) that their Washington offices literally overlook the Senate office buildings.
To be sure, the vast bulk of the roughly 35,000 lobbyists in town represent businesses and industries. Nonetheless, as citizens of a commercial republic, should this really surprise us?
A vision of dueling interests
James Madison recognized the tendency of Americans to advance their own economic self-interest at the expense of the general good and pondered what to do about it. He dismissed (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm) the possibility of banning these "factions," arguing that they are a byproduct of our freedom.
His solution was just to allow them to multiply and, as the country expanded, no single interest would dominate. Free to struggle for influence, they would checkmate each other.
What Madison had not reckoned on was the vast expansion in the scope of activities of the federal government over the next 200 years.
As the government expanded, it has affected the lives and livelihoods of more people. They, in turn, want to ensure that government action does not harm them. Even better, they look to an expansive government to benefit them. So if the federal government gets into the business of building dams, they want to supply the cement. If Washington decides to prop up farm prices with subsidies, as it first did in the 1930s (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html), you want to make sure your commodity gets its share.
People of the revolutionary generation probably imagined that individuals would make their way to Washington to personally make their case for government help. They could not have imagined the hordes of surrogates, many of them receiving princely sums, who would take up residence in the nation's capital and subsist on pressing the cases of others. The idea that a professional advocate such as Jack Abramoff would be corruptly influencing the federal government would have been altogether inconceivable to James Madison.
The good with the bad
The defect in Madison's architecture is not that interest groups would proliferate, but that there would be such an imbalance between those seeking to get or maintain private gain and those advocating for the needs of humbler people. There are, of course, multitudes of lobbyists who advocate the needs of the handicapped, the elderly and endangered species, but they are often out-gunned by trade associations and industry lobbyists.
The defeat in the House of the recent effort to require U.S. automakers to boost the fuel economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079816/) of their cars is eloquent testimony to the clout of business. On the other hand, the high rollers who pushed for the elimination of the inheritance tax (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273376_estatewash09.html) received a stinging rebuke when the repeal that they favored was defeated in the Senate. The big boys don't always get what they want, especially when the focus of the media puts the issue out in the open.
There are in lobbying, as in other enterprises, noble and degraded examples. So you have the Children's Defense Fund pushing for an expansion (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/childhealth/) of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan and a smug and arrogant Abramoff manipulating the Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-tribes-giving_x.htm) on behalf of his well-heeled clients.
Both are lobbying. Even so, it would be as unfair to assume that all lobbyists are like Jack Abramoff as it would be to liken all physicians to Jack Kevorkian.
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
There was a moment in one of the recent Democratic debates in which former senator John Edwards practically accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of being in league with the devil. For some time, he had been attacking her for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Now, using the occasion of a just-passed lobbying reform bill awaiting the signature of a skeptical president, he exceeded even his previous needling of her by suggesting guilt-by-association. Turning to the audience, he charged that lobbyists, such as those who contribute to Clinton, "rig the system against all of you (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html?_r=1&ex=1187841600&en=a9c739db3da26fdf&ei=5070&oref=slogin)."
Edwards' accusations deftly played into a belief common even among well-educated Americans that lobbying, if not actually illegal, is a blot on American politics. The problem with this belief is that it is misinformed.
It might come as a surprise to most people that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602251.html) under the hallowed First Amendment. After the Founding Fathers cast the cloak of protection over freedom of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble, they added a category that could not be infringed upon by the federal government: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)."
Few contemporary efforts to influence government action come by way of a formal petition. But the idea of giving citizens access to government was seen by the writers of the Constitution as something worth safeguarding. And it is, indeed, worth safeguarding because every group in America, at one time or another, has got a gripe and turns to Congress or the federal bureaucracy.
Groups engaged in activities that might seem wholly unconnected with politics, such as the American Automobile Association (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_H.htm) (the folks who get your car started on cold mornings), maintain a presence in Washington to monitor what goes on in Congress. When lawmakers and congressional staffers return from their summer recess, the army of lobbyists storms Washington alongside them.
Religious and military organizations, despite the apolitical nature of our armed forces and the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, stick very close to Congress. So close are the Methodists (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=gpYbdG8nTTbstJWZbHF4nQ%3d%3d&longitude=UTH%2fxgxU3NJ%2fZzEipoIpSw%3d%3d&name=General%20Board%2dGlbl%20Ministries&country=US&address=100%20Maryland%20Ave%20NE%20%23%20315&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d548%2d4002&spurl=0&&q=The%20United%20Methodist%20General%20Board%20of% 20Church%20and%20Society&qc=%28All%29%20Places%20Of%20Worship) and the Reserve Officers Association (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=2jypmtPMGHqb5z8DqMKpow%3d%3d&longitude=CIpOYIVGteZ%2bBzAf6jdV1Q%3d%3d&name=Reserve%20Officers%20Assn%20of%20US&country=US&address=101%20Constitution%20Ave%20NE&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d479%2d2221&spurl=0&&q=Reserve%20Officers%20Association&qc=Associations) that their Washington offices literally overlook the Senate office buildings.
To be sure, the vast bulk of the roughly 35,000 lobbyists in town represent businesses and industries. Nonetheless, as citizens of a commercial republic, should this really surprise us?
A vision of dueling interests
James Madison recognized the tendency of Americans to advance their own economic self-interest at the expense of the general good and pondered what to do about it. He dismissed (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm) the possibility of banning these "factions," arguing that they are a byproduct of our freedom.
His solution was just to allow them to multiply and, as the country expanded, no single interest would dominate. Free to struggle for influence, they would checkmate each other.
What Madison had not reckoned on was the vast expansion in the scope of activities of the federal government over the next 200 years.
As the government expanded, it has affected the lives and livelihoods of more people. They, in turn, want to ensure that government action does not harm them. Even better, they look to an expansive government to benefit them. So if the federal government gets into the business of building dams, they want to supply the cement. If Washington decides to prop up farm prices with subsidies, as it first did in the 1930s (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html), you want to make sure your commodity gets its share.
People of the revolutionary generation probably imagined that individuals would make their way to Washington to personally make their case for government help. They could not have imagined the hordes of surrogates, many of them receiving princely sums, who would take up residence in the nation's capital and subsist on pressing the cases of others. The idea that a professional advocate such as Jack Abramoff would be corruptly influencing the federal government would have been altogether inconceivable to James Madison.
The good with the bad
The defect in Madison's architecture is not that interest groups would proliferate, but that there would be such an imbalance between those seeking to get or maintain private gain and those advocating for the needs of humbler people. There are, of course, multitudes of lobbyists who advocate the needs of the handicapped, the elderly and endangered species, but they are often out-gunned by trade associations and industry lobbyists.
The defeat in the House of the recent effort to require U.S. automakers to boost the fuel economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079816/) of their cars is eloquent testimony to the clout of business. On the other hand, the high rollers who pushed for the elimination of the inheritance tax (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273376_estatewash09.html) received a stinging rebuke when the repeal that they favored was defeated in the Senate. The big boys don't always get what they want, especially when the focus of the media puts the issue out in the open.
There are in lobbying, as in other enterprises, noble and degraded examples. So you have the Children's Defense Fund pushing for an expansion (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/childhealth/) of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan and a smug and arrogant Abramoff manipulating the Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-tribes-giving_x.htm) on behalf of his well-heeled clients.
Both are lobbying. Even so, it would be as unfair to assume that all lobbyists are like Jack Abramoff as it would be to liken all physicians to Jack Kevorkian.
wallpaper hair surgery, Heidi Montag
nogc_noproblem
08-05 02:10 PM
When a physician remarked on a new patient's extraordinarily ruddy complexion...
... he said, "High blood pressure, Doc. It comes from my family."
"Your mother's side or your father's?" I asked.
"Neither," he replied. "It's from my wife's family."
"Oh, come now," I said. "How could your wife's family give you high blood pressure?"
He sighed. "You oughta meet 'em sometime, Doc!"
... he said, "High blood pressure, Doc. It comes from my family."
"Your mother's side or your father's?" I asked.
"Neither," he replied. "It's from my wife's family."
"Oh, come now," I said. "How could your wife's family give you high blood pressure?"
He sighed. "You oughta meet 'em sometime, Doc!"
Munna Bhai
07-08 07:47 PM
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
What made them to ask paystub for during 2000 and 2001?
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
What made them to ask paystub for during 2000 and 2001?
2011 makeup and after plastic
lakshman.easwaran
07-10 03:19 PM
After going through this post
I checked my I 94 last entered in 2006 it has different number than other I 94
I am working with only one company since 2004
They wrote company name src number correct on I 94
but number is not same as the one on I 797 bottom totally different
should i get it corrected ? How
I do not think you have to correct anything since your last entry I-94 card will have different number from that in 797 approval notice. I-94 number has to be the same in last entry card and 797 only if you have a situation like me as below
1) Last entry to US in 2004 - Hence have an I-94 card.
2) Switched employer in 2006. So received new 797 approval notice alongwith updated I-94.
In my case, the updated I-94 and the last entry I-94 card have the same I-94 number.
Hope this helps.
I checked my I 94 last entered in 2006 it has different number than other I 94
I am working with only one company since 2004
They wrote company name src number correct on I 94
but number is not same as the one on I 797 bottom totally different
should i get it corrected ? How
I do not think you have to correct anything since your last entry I-94 card will have different number from that in 797 approval notice. I-94 number has to be the same in last entry card and 797 only if you have a situation like me as below
1) Last entry to US in 2004 - Hence have an I-94 card.
2) Switched employer in 2006. So received new 797 approval notice alongwith updated I-94.
In my case, the updated I-94 and the last entry I-94 card have the same I-94 number.
Hope this helps.
more...
SunnySurya
08-05 10:38 AM
I object to your insinuation and gross generalization. It is not your job to ask this question. It upto the law of the land to figure that out and root out dishonesty and deceit.
I don't know about rolling flood Just FYI I have an MBA from the US ( a top ) university and have been working with various fortune 100 companies. Currently on EAD.
I asked this before and asking again. How many of that EB2 got jobs with out faking their resumes and skill set. Atleast did you?
I don't know about rolling flood Just FYI I have an MBA from the US ( a top ) university and have been working with various fortune 100 companies. Currently on EAD.
I asked this before and asking again. How many of that EB2 got jobs with out faking their resumes and skill set. Atleast did you?
nojoke
04-15 10:44 PM
Ok Dude, I will try just one last time, nobody is advocating buying a house when the market is bad. The question someone asked was is it ok to buy a house when I485 is pending, and the answer given was if he has found a very good deal, in a very good location and considering his situation if it is affordable then I485 should not be a hindrance. People who were still on H1 have bought a house when the market was good and they are doing well now. Some people who got GC might have bought a house just before the market came crashing down and they were plain unlucky. I myself bought a small affordable home when I had just my labor stage cleared. If when I bought this house the market was like this, I would not have bought but would have waited. Period.
And for those who become nostalgic. I myself was bought up in a small house, it had only two rooms, I repeat, the whole house had just two rooms, nothing else. We had to share a toilet with 3 other houses of similar size, was I happy then?, Of course I was happy, I used to play cricket and other sports on the street with other kids with vehicles passing by once in a while. Is the situation same here?. No, but do kids here have other ways of having fun, oh yes. It doesn’t matter if the kid is living in an apartment or a house, all that matters is if he is having fun. Somebody came up with a strange logic that our love for our kids will diminish if we buy a house. If you have bought a decent, affordable house your love will not diminish, it will only manifold.
I am not against renting, nor against people living in an apartment, I myself have lived in apartments before. I am against people who only want to save for god knows what, for people who are afraid to take small risks (for ex: buying a small home and not a mansion) when the market becomes good, they will ask you to prepare for the worst case scenario. They will say don’t buy a house because the sky will fall or don’t buy because the world will come to an end. Nothing is permanent here, not the job, not the location. You just have to take calculated risks. You just cannot console yourself saying you are from middle class and cannot do a thing, lift yourself up. If you want to buy a house but you are not doing it now because the market is bad, then I am not against you, so don’t jump on me.
Dude - Since you did not point out the danger of buying a house in this economy(you and some others said go ahead and buy), I am pointing it. I will continue to point to the risk.
And you are back to the point "housing is better than renting". Everyone has their own reasons to rent out or buy. I am not making a blanket statement that renting is good or buying a house is good. Where as you keep making the argument that renting is bad and buying house is good. We don't know the situation what one is in. Their jobs may be shaky. You just cannot say they made a mistake by renting. And some don't think not owning a house is a big deal. "Lift yourself up:(? (do you attend NAR seminars?)" - that is your view. Google and you will see that there are many who think buying house means wasting time maintaining.
And for those who become nostalgic. I myself was bought up in a small house, it had only two rooms, I repeat, the whole house had just two rooms, nothing else. We had to share a toilet with 3 other houses of similar size, was I happy then?, Of course I was happy, I used to play cricket and other sports on the street with other kids with vehicles passing by once in a while. Is the situation same here?. No, but do kids here have other ways of having fun, oh yes. It doesn’t matter if the kid is living in an apartment or a house, all that matters is if he is having fun. Somebody came up with a strange logic that our love for our kids will diminish if we buy a house. If you have bought a decent, affordable house your love will not diminish, it will only manifold.
I am not against renting, nor against people living in an apartment, I myself have lived in apartments before. I am against people who only want to save for god knows what, for people who are afraid to take small risks (for ex: buying a small home and not a mansion) when the market becomes good, they will ask you to prepare for the worst case scenario. They will say don’t buy a house because the sky will fall or don’t buy because the world will come to an end. Nothing is permanent here, not the job, not the location. You just have to take calculated risks. You just cannot console yourself saying you are from middle class and cannot do a thing, lift yourself up. If you want to buy a house but you are not doing it now because the market is bad, then I am not against you, so don’t jump on me.
Dude - Since you did not point out the danger of buying a house in this economy(you and some others said go ahead and buy), I am pointing it. I will continue to point to the risk.
And you are back to the point "housing is better than renting". Everyone has their own reasons to rent out or buy. I am not making a blanket statement that renting is good or buying a house is good. Where as you keep making the argument that renting is bad and buying house is good. We don't know the situation what one is in. Their jobs may be shaky. You just cannot say they made a mistake by renting. And some don't think not owning a house is a big deal. "Lift yourself up:(? (do you attend NAR seminars?)" - that is your view. Google and you will see that there are many who think buying house means wasting time maintaining.
more...
meg_z
08-06 09:53 AM
How come the concern???
USCIS forms ask questions for a reason right? They ask for the visa number, consulate issued, etc. There are a lot of inter-agency checks. When people are stuck in background check; it is a whole host of things that they check. Most of what they check is confidential and isn't even public; they are more investigative techniques.
Because I do not remember which address I used on the visa application, and how I translated my employer's name in home country. In China, at least those days, everyone had a residence record showing your address. We had ours at my in-law's address, while living in a new development. We might used one of those two addresses. Same thing with company names, merging, name changing etc was common.
According to Crystal and Milind70, I am a bit relieved as my visa application was a long time ago. So I may not need to worry about it. Thanks everyone.
USCIS forms ask questions for a reason right? They ask for the visa number, consulate issued, etc. There are a lot of inter-agency checks. When people are stuck in background check; it is a whole host of things that they check. Most of what they check is confidential and isn't even public; they are more investigative techniques.
Because I do not remember which address I used on the visa application, and how I translated my employer's name in home country. In China, at least those days, everyone had a residence record showing your address. We had ours at my in-law's address, while living in a new development. We might used one of those two addresses. Same thing with company names, merging, name changing etc was common.
According to Crystal and Milind70, I am a bit relieved as my visa application was a long time ago. So I may not need to worry about it. Thanks everyone.
2010 heidi montag before and after
dealsnet
01-08 01:15 PM
Read their explanation, Rayaan, regugee_new are upset about the Mumbai tread. It means what??. Need a teacher or preacher to interpret it??
We can understand what they mean.
dealsnet,
I am just quite spectator , but could not resist to respond you on this ... I don't see any "Support" for terrorist or Mumbai attacks posted by Rayyan.
PLEASE Stop making assumptions,Dude.
As Bfadila said, you have serious language comprehension issues....
We can understand what they mean.
dealsnet,
I am just quite spectator , but could not resist to respond you on this ... I don't see any "Support" for terrorist or Mumbai attacks posted by Rayyan.
PLEASE Stop making assumptions,Dude.
As Bfadila said, you have serious language comprehension issues....
more...
sledge_hammer
03-24 02:17 PM
Again, I am not the one you should be asking to define "full-time" and "temp" type jobs. Ask USCIS or DOL or whoever is going to adjudicate your green card.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
sledge_hammer,
Why don't you define what a "permanent" job is ?
You think FT job is a permanent job and consulting is a temporary job ? I don't think so.
There are consultants working for years in a consulting firm. ( Don't bring H1B into the picture) . There are many FT employees being laid off from companies before contractors are let go. Contractors are temporary from a client's perspective not from the sponsoring employer's perspective.
Try to define a permanent vs temporary job in US without bringing H1B into the picture.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
sledge_hammer,
Why don't you define what a "permanent" job is ?
You think FT job is a permanent job and consulting is a temporary job ? I don't think so.
There are consultants working for years in a consulting firm. ( Don't bring H1B into the picture) . There are many FT employees being laid off from companies before contractors are let go. Contractors are temporary from a client's perspective not from the sponsoring employer's perspective.
Try to define a permanent vs temporary job in US without bringing H1B into the picture.
hair dresses heidi montag before
Macaca
07-28 07:43 AM
Democratic Leaders Agree on Overhaul of Lobbying (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28lobby.html?hp) By CARL HULSE New York Times, July 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
more...
pmb76
12-20 02:03 PM
razis dude, I'm probably the most secular person you'll find on IV. Read my previous posts. However I have to disagree with you on this one and that too very strongly. Each of the places you mention Muslims are the Oppressors and not Oppressed.
I completely support George Bush's doctrine of smokin' em out and ridding the world of Islamofascism. He is one of the best presidents this country has ever had. However he is misunderstood throughout the world. World over - jihadis and islamofascists hate Bush with a vengeance - which tells me only this - He must be doin' somethin' right. As long as we have more leaders like Bush we are in safe hands.
We shall not tire, We shall not falter and We shall not fail - until Islamofascism is wiped out.
Just my 2 cents.
be it Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia,Darfur,Chechnya, Kashmir, Gujarat... everywhere muslims are killed for being muslims...noone goes to cuba,srilanka,north korea,zimbawe or whereever for watever reason...just imagine God forbid someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.
I completely support George Bush's doctrine of smokin' em out and ridding the world of Islamofascism. He is one of the best presidents this country has ever had. However he is misunderstood throughout the world. World over - jihadis and islamofascists hate Bush with a vengeance - which tells me only this - He must be doin' somethin' right. As long as we have more leaders like Bush we are in safe hands.
We shall not tire, We shall not falter and We shall not fail - until Islamofascism is wiped out.
Just my 2 cents.
be it Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia,Darfur,Chechnya, Kashmir, Gujarat... everywhere muslims are killed for being muslims...noone goes to cuba,srilanka,north korea,zimbawe or whereever for watever reason...just imagine God forbid someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.
hot Surgery ruined my career and
NeverEndingH1
12-17 02:39 PM
Now you may go and dig out my previous postings too!
Ah! all these red dots are showered on me by you kinda folks for questioning this type of nonsense!
Bring it on more (red dots) LOL
Marphad,
But none of their postings (jaspreetsinghgandhi & tabletpc) had your kind of religious-politics in it!
Ah! all these red dots are showered on me by you kinda folks for questioning this type of nonsense!
Bring it on more (red dots) LOL
Marphad,
But none of their postings (jaspreetsinghgandhi & tabletpc) had your kind of religious-politics in it!
more...
house Post plastic surgery
riva2005
04-08 01:11 PM
Guys you are unnecessarily raking your brain over this. This is a blatant anti immigrant anti eb green card bill disguised as h1 reform. The people who wrote this bill are the same people who were carrying placards saying "legal immigrants welcome, no to illegal immigration". Now do you really believe them? Even Jeff sessions was one of them and he is the number one opposer of legal eb immigrants.
Pitha,
You're going in the right direction. But a slight correction here.
These guys...Sessions, Grassley etc dont really support or oppose anything on principle. Its not like they have made up their mind about what they think is right or wrong for the country. They are responding to their campaign contributors. Plain and simple.
I can cite 2 such examples:
Firstly, Senator Dianne Feinstein. She was against Amnesty. Thru and thru. Now, the spinach and lettuce growers lobbied her. Suddenly, she supported and sponsored Agjobs bill. And what does Agjobs bill have in it? Mini-Amnesty, but only limited to agricultural workers. And this change of heart didnt even take 6 months. Elected officials tend to be very flexible when you are suffering from weight of heavy and burdensome cash in your pockets that needs to be relieved.
Another example, our own dear Senator Chuck Grassley from the State of Iowa. He is strong opponent of Amnesty. Believes in the rule of law. Always opposed to legalizing the illegals ... except when he doesnt. When does he not oppose legalization? When is co-sponsors Agjobs bill with Sen. Dianne Feinstein? You see, Iowa isnt exactly the Silicon Priarie if Bay Area is the silicon valley so he dunt give damn about them damn H1B scum. But Iowa does grow quite a bit of corn. And suddenly the corn has become a cash-rich crop due to Ethanol. So the farmers of Iowa had a heavy burden of the extra cash in their pockets. Senator Chuck Grassley relieved that extra weight of cash from corn growers and chose to co-sponsor the Agjobs bill that gives Amnesty to agricultural workers.
This is the data from the Federal Election commission that tracks money in politics and www.opensecrets.org where there is a more user-friendly way to find out the same data of who gives money to whom in politics and lobbying.
Senator Dianne Feinstein : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00007364&cycle=2006&expand=A07
TOTAL Agribusiness $97,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $47,000
American Cotton Shippers Assn $1,000
Blue Diamond Growers $3,000
Calcot Ltd $1,500
California Avocado Proponent $1,000
California Citrus Mutual $3,000
California Cotton Growers Assn $500
California Grape & Tree Fruit League $1,500
California Rice Industry Assn Fund $1,000
Farmers' Rice Cooperative $8,000
Florida Crystals $1,000
Louisiana Rice PAC $1,000
National Assn of Wheat Growers $1,000
National Cotton Council $1,000
National Potato Council $1,000
Nisei Farmers League $2,000
Producers Rice Mill Inc $1,000
Raisin Bargaining Assn $3,500
Riceland Foods $1,000
Southern Minn Beet Sugar Co-op $4,000
Sun-Maid Growers of California $2,000
Sunkist Growers $1,000
USA Rice Federation $2,000
Western Growers Assn $1,000
Western Pistachio Assn $4,000
Total Agricultural Services/Products $17,000
American Assn of Nurserymen $2,000
American Veterinary Medical Assn $2,000
California Westside Farmers Inc $1,000
Farm Credit Council $6,000
Friant Water PAC $2,000
National Council of Farmer Co-ops $1,000
Nestle Purina PetCare $1,000
Society of American Florists $2,000
Senator Chuck Grassley : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00001758&cycle=2006&expand=P
Total Agribusiness $34,500
Crop Production & Basic Processing $1,000
Dairy $5,000
Poultry & Eggs $1,000
Livestock $1,000
Agricultural Services/Products $14,500
Food Processing & Sales $8,000
Forestry & Forest Products $4,000
Pitha,
You're going in the right direction. But a slight correction here.
These guys...Sessions, Grassley etc dont really support or oppose anything on principle. Its not like they have made up their mind about what they think is right or wrong for the country. They are responding to their campaign contributors. Plain and simple.
I can cite 2 such examples:
Firstly, Senator Dianne Feinstein. She was against Amnesty. Thru and thru. Now, the spinach and lettuce growers lobbied her. Suddenly, she supported and sponsored Agjobs bill. And what does Agjobs bill have in it? Mini-Amnesty, but only limited to agricultural workers. And this change of heart didnt even take 6 months. Elected officials tend to be very flexible when you are suffering from weight of heavy and burdensome cash in your pockets that needs to be relieved.
Another example, our own dear Senator Chuck Grassley from the State of Iowa. He is strong opponent of Amnesty. Believes in the rule of law. Always opposed to legalizing the illegals ... except when he doesnt. When does he not oppose legalization? When is co-sponsors Agjobs bill with Sen. Dianne Feinstein? You see, Iowa isnt exactly the Silicon Priarie if Bay Area is the silicon valley so he dunt give damn about them damn H1B scum. But Iowa does grow quite a bit of corn. And suddenly the corn has become a cash-rich crop due to Ethanol. So the farmers of Iowa had a heavy burden of the extra cash in their pockets. Senator Chuck Grassley relieved that extra weight of cash from corn growers and chose to co-sponsor the Agjobs bill that gives Amnesty to agricultural workers.
This is the data from the Federal Election commission that tracks money in politics and www.opensecrets.org where there is a more user-friendly way to find out the same data of who gives money to whom in politics and lobbying.
Senator Dianne Feinstein : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00007364&cycle=2006&expand=A07
TOTAL Agribusiness $97,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $47,000
American Cotton Shippers Assn $1,000
Blue Diamond Growers $3,000
Calcot Ltd $1,500
California Avocado Proponent $1,000
California Citrus Mutual $3,000
California Cotton Growers Assn $500
California Grape & Tree Fruit League $1,500
California Rice Industry Assn Fund $1,000
Farmers' Rice Cooperative $8,000
Florida Crystals $1,000
Louisiana Rice PAC $1,000
National Assn of Wheat Growers $1,000
National Cotton Council $1,000
National Potato Council $1,000
Nisei Farmers League $2,000
Producers Rice Mill Inc $1,000
Raisin Bargaining Assn $3,500
Riceland Foods $1,000
Southern Minn Beet Sugar Co-op $4,000
Sun-Maid Growers of California $2,000
Sunkist Growers $1,000
USA Rice Federation $2,000
Western Growers Assn $1,000
Western Pistachio Assn $4,000
Total Agricultural Services/Products $17,000
American Assn of Nurserymen $2,000
American Veterinary Medical Assn $2,000
California Westside Farmers Inc $1,000
Farm Credit Council $6,000
Friant Water PAC $2,000
National Council of Farmer Co-ops $1,000
Nestle Purina PetCare $1,000
Society of American Florists $2,000
Senator Chuck Grassley : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00001758&cycle=2006&expand=P
Total Agribusiness $34,500
Crop Production & Basic Processing $1,000
Dairy $5,000
Poultry & Eggs $1,000
Livestock $1,000
Agricultural Services/Products $14,500
Food Processing & Sales $8,000
Forestry & Forest Products $4,000
tattoo images heidi montag scars life
nogc_noproblem
08-05 01:35 PM
A guy in a bar was talking about how he always watched his wedding video backwards.
When asked why, he replied:
"Coz I love the end bit where she takes the ring off her finger, goes back down the aisle, and jumps in the car and disappears..."
When asked why, he replied:
"Coz I love the end bit where she takes the ring off her finger, goes back down the aisle, and jumps in the car and disappears..."
more...
pictures heidi montag before and after
sanju
12-17 04:38 PM
sledge_hammer, xyzgc, truthiness,
please remove bold text from your post in response to acool. In the words of Contessa Brewer, acool is a Fother Mucker.
.
please remove bold text from your post in response to acool. In the words of Contessa Brewer, acool is a Fother Mucker.
.
dresses Heidi Montag has been left
pani_6
07-13 08:52 PM
Dont worry about negative opinions of people..I urge EB3-I to post the letter first and then get into discussions..
Action & Urgency!
Come' on EB3-I
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20147
Action & Urgency!
Come' on EB3-I
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20147
more...
makeup Heidi Montag before and after
alterego
11-11 10:50 PM
Americans are fair minded for the most part. They saw the propoganda of the far right for what it was. This election did not tilt on immigration, but on other issues. However the fact that the conservatives got zero traction from their hard line approach implies that the country was looking for a more comprehensive solution.
I think that the american public does want secure borders and to some extent is unhappy with the status quo on the border. However they are also cognisant of the fact that immigrant labour benefits them and their lifestyles tremendously. They by and large do not favour a get tough only policy. They could easily embrace a policy where hardworking people can "earn their way" into the kingdom. Bipartisanship will perhaps show the way forward. Imagine those guys like Sensenbrenner,Tancredo would not even negotiate with the Senate or allow anything pro any kind of immigration to a general house vote taking advantage of their majority position by their "majority of the majority rule". They even actively stripped legal immigration provisions in conference last year. As for Sensenbrenner and his types. Lets see how much they enjoy being in the "minority of the minority" now, I guess the bulldog that chewed out the senators and cleaned his teeth with their bones is now but a mere poodle in the room! Gotta love elections in a democracy.
I think that the american public does want secure borders and to some extent is unhappy with the status quo on the border. However they are also cognisant of the fact that immigrant labour benefits them and their lifestyles tremendously. They by and large do not favour a get tough only policy. They could easily embrace a policy where hardworking people can "earn their way" into the kingdom. Bipartisanship will perhaps show the way forward. Imagine those guys like Sensenbrenner,Tancredo would not even negotiate with the Senate or allow anything pro any kind of immigration to a general house vote taking advantage of their majority position by their "majority of the majority rule". They even actively stripped legal immigration provisions in conference last year. As for Sensenbrenner and his types. Lets see how much they enjoy being in the "minority of the minority" now, I guess the bulldog that chewed out the senators and cleaned his teeth with their bones is now but a mere poodle in the room! Gotta love elections in a democracy.
girlfriend house heidi montag before and
qasleuth
03-31 07:35 PM
I am not convinced with the whole systematic preadjudication logic at all. I think it has to do with the mistakenly released memo by USCIS and the criteria which is listed in it. Companies meeting the criteria listed in that memo's H1s/I140s are being looked at and I485 app in the same file. There is no trend in the posts on this site by people who received RFEs to suggest systematic preadjudication, they are all over the place. EB2, EB3 - priority date-years ranging from 2001 to 2006, received RFEs.
USCIS seems to be making a coordinated attempt to preadjudicate in order to avoid future backlogs (to achieve their metrics on processing times). See thread on Processing Time Targets they have set for themselves: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24747
USCIS seems to be making a coordinated attempt to preadjudicate in order to avoid future backlogs (to achieve their metrics on processing times). See thread on Processing Time Targets they have set for themselves: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24747
hairstyles heidi montag plastic surgery
myuname
04-07 07:55 PM
When there is no solution is to be found for the illegal immigration issue...then the obvious thing to mess with is the legal immigration! Isn't It? ;)
Good Job! Kudos to whoever is doing it! :p
Corporate world drives the laws and lobbying. This bill will be in the bin even before you know it. As for the STIVE etc. none will make it as long as they are comprehensive in nature. That said, the relief to the EB segment is coming soon, so sit tight.
Good Job! Kudos to whoever is doing it! :p
Corporate world drives the laws and lobbying. This bill will be in the bin even before you know it. As for the STIVE etc. none will make it as long as they are comprehensive in nature. That said, the relief to the EB segment is coming soon, so sit tight.
rsdang
08-12 11:24 AM
HOTEL KERALA-FONIA
On the road to Trivandrum
Coconut oil in my hair
Warm smell of avial
Rising up through the air
Up ahead in the distance
I saw a bright pink tube-light
My tummy rumbled, I felt weak and thin
I had to stop for a bite
There he stood in the doorway
Flicked his mundu in style
And I was thinking to myself
I don't like the look of his sinister smile
Then he lit up a petromax
Muttering "No power today"
More Mallus down the corridor
I thought I heard them say <<
Welcome to the Hotel Kerala-fonia
Such a lousy place,
Such a lousy place (background)
Such a sad disgrace,
Plenty of bugs at the Hotel Kerala-fonia
Any time of year
Any time of year (background)
It's infested here
It's infested here
His finger's stuck up his nostril
He's got a big, thick mustache
He makes an ugly, ugly noise
But that's just his laugh
Buxom girls clad in pavada
Eating banana chips
Some roll their eyes, and
Some roll their hips
I said to the manager
My room's full of mice
He said,
Don't worry, saar,I sending you
meen karri, brandy and ice
And still those voices were crying from far away
Wake you up in the middle of the night
Just to hear them pray
Save us from the Hotel Kerala-fonia
Such a lousy place,
Such a lousy place (background)
Such a sad disgrace
Trying to live at the Hotel Kerala-fonia
It is no surprise
It is no surprise (background)
That it swarms with flies
The blind man was pouring
Stale sambar on rice
And he said
We are all just actors here
In Silk Smitha-disguise
And in the dining chamber
We gathered for the feast
We stab it with our steely knives
But we just can't cut that beef
Last thing I remember
I was writhing on the floor
That cockroach in my appam-stew was the culprit,
I am sure
Relax, said the watchman
This enema will make you well
And his friends laughed as they held me down
God's Own Country? Oh, Hell!
On the road to Trivandrum
Coconut oil in my hair
Warm smell of avial
Rising up through the air
Up ahead in the distance
I saw a bright pink tube-light
My tummy rumbled, I felt weak and thin
I had to stop for a bite
There he stood in the doorway
Flicked his mundu in style
And I was thinking to myself
I don't like the look of his sinister smile
Then he lit up a petromax
Muttering "No power today"
More Mallus down the corridor
I thought I heard them say <<
Welcome to the Hotel Kerala-fonia
Such a lousy place,
Such a lousy place (background)
Such a sad disgrace,
Plenty of bugs at the Hotel Kerala-fonia
Any time of year
Any time of year (background)
It's infested here
It's infested here
His finger's stuck up his nostril
He's got a big, thick mustache
He makes an ugly, ugly noise
But that's just his laugh
Buxom girls clad in pavada
Eating banana chips
Some roll their eyes, and
Some roll their hips
I said to the manager
My room's full of mice
He said,
Don't worry, saar,I sending you
meen karri, brandy and ice
And still those voices were crying from far away
Wake you up in the middle of the night
Just to hear them pray
Save us from the Hotel Kerala-fonia
Such a lousy place,
Such a lousy place (background)
Such a sad disgrace
Trying to live at the Hotel Kerala-fonia
It is no surprise
It is no surprise (background)
That it swarms with flies
The blind man was pouring
Stale sambar on rice
And he said
We are all just actors here
In Silk Smitha-disguise
And in the dining chamber
We gathered for the feast
We stab it with our steely knives
But we just can't cut that beef
Last thing I remember
I was writhing on the floor
That cockroach in my appam-stew was the culprit,
I am sure
Relax, said the watchman
This enema will make you well
And his friends laughed as they held me down
God's Own Country? Oh, Hell!
vdlrao
07-14 11:02 AM
EB2 dates may be unavailable/ dont move. But it is just for a very short span of time. And after that EB2 dates start moving quickly again. I presume by 2009 october, the EB2 India PD will close to 2008. Any retrogression, if there is, in EB2 will be very mild from now on because of the spillovers.
Regarding EB3: Every year there had been about 100k approvals in EB3 category, out of around 160K(even though there are 140k visas, there have been approving more because they are using unused family visa numbers) approvals in Employment Based Category. This is because of vertical fall outs of visa numbers. Now they have changed the scenario to horizontal fall outs (spreading across at the same category level( ex. EB2) irrespective of country of chargeability.). So this time it would be around 100K approvals in EB2 category.
Let us make as much noice as we could because of EB3 retrogression. That doesnt effect EB2 movement. But may make it possible visa numbers increase for EB category by legislation. So we have to support this agitation made by our EB3 friends.
I could seee all the EB3 folks with PD older than 2006 and EB2 folks with PD older than 2008 will be cleared off in the next two years. I am sure there wont be not more than 1 or 2 years delay between EB2 and EB3 categories in near future.And there are lot of things going to happen for employment based immigratin in the next two years.
This EB2 movement of 2 and half years is just a first step by DOS.
Regarding EB3: Every year there had been about 100k approvals in EB3 category, out of around 160K(even though there are 140k visas, there have been approving more because they are using unused family visa numbers) approvals in Employment Based Category. This is because of vertical fall outs of visa numbers. Now they have changed the scenario to horizontal fall outs (spreading across at the same category level( ex. EB2) irrespective of country of chargeability.). So this time it would be around 100K approvals in EB2 category.
Let us make as much noice as we could because of EB3 retrogression. That doesnt effect EB2 movement. But may make it possible visa numbers increase for EB category by legislation. So we have to support this agitation made by our EB3 friends.
I could seee all the EB3 folks with PD older than 2006 and EB2 folks with PD older than 2008 will be cleared off in the next two years. I am sure there wont be not more than 1 or 2 years delay between EB2 and EB3 categories in near future.And there are lot of things going to happen for employment based immigratin in the next two years.
This EB2 movement of 2 and half years is just a first step by DOS.