sroyc
08-06 10:41 AM
I'm not a lawyer but I think it'll be hard to prove that A qualifies for EB2 given that he/she does not have a Masters or 5 years of experience in a related field.
Regarding the EB1 spillover - yes, it's a valid question but the fuzziness of the law gives them enough room to interpret it either way.
Okay lets take your example. A & B are graduates with a Bachelors degree (A is a Mechanical and B is Computer Science). A decides to pursue higher study in Mechanical field and B takes up a Software job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school. A joins a software company (His Masters in Mechanical is worth nothing now). EB2 is filed for A just because he has a Masters, B is also eligible for EB2 by that time. Why can't B get a earlier PD? Atleast B got relevant industry experience. How come A is superior than B?
Also why should EB2's get the spillover visas from EB1? Do they have a Ph.D? Why can't they allocate spillover visas from EB1 equally between EB2 and EB3?
Regarding the EB1 spillover - yes, it's a valid question but the fuzziness of the law gives them enough room to interpret it either way.
Okay lets take your example. A & B are graduates with a Bachelors degree (A is a Mechanical and B is Computer Science). A decides to pursue higher study in Mechanical field and B takes up a Software job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school. A joins a software company (His Masters in Mechanical is worth nothing now). EB2 is filed for A just because he has a Masters, B is also eligible for EB2 by that time. Why can't B get a earlier PD? Atleast B got relevant industry experience. How come A is superior than B?
Also why should EB2's get the spillover visas from EB1? Do they have a Ph.D? Why can't they allocate spillover visas from EB1 equally between EB2 and EB3?
wallpaper COMPAQ Presario
smisachu
12-28 08:48 PM
India is nobody's fool. Will you take back inside your house, the trash you have trown out? India wins the war, destroys all terrorist camps, kills all the wanted terrorists on Indian files. Then India withdraws from pakistan leaving back pakistan in the hands of its current civilian heads. All India wants is to kill the terrorists, either Pakistan does it or We do it for you. India will be doing Pakistan a favor. So either you do it or we do it. Bottom like the terrorists need to be Killed.
And as far as comparing us to President Bush, India has never lost a war yet because India never went to war with any one with out them provoking it. India always fights Justified wars and justice always wins.
So Mr. Trained Reservist,
Let's say the war is won in 15-20 days based on your expert knowledge, what is next? India occupies Pakistan? and acquires 160 million muslim population along with Talibans? You think that will end terrorism and riots in India?
Oh BTW, there is another trained reservist in the history who claimed Iraq war would be won in two weeks. Do you know who he is? Hint: he became the worst president in the history of the US.
And as far as comparing us to President Bush, India has never lost a war yet because India never went to war with any one with out them provoking it. India always fights Justified wars and justice always wins.
So Mr. Trained Reservist,
Let's say the war is won in 15-20 days based on your expert knowledge, what is next? India occupies Pakistan? and acquires 160 million muslim population along with Talibans? You think that will end terrorism and riots in India?
Oh BTW, there is another trained reservist in the history who claimed Iraq war would be won in two weeks. Do you know who he is? Hint: he became the worst president in the history of the US.
chintu25
08-05 10:07 AM
:DGuys ,
The "mahaul"(environment) seems so Tense around the IV forums that I thought of making a thread to share some light humor / Jokes etc
Here are some funny quotes to start with
I don't think President fully understands this immigration thing.
Like today, when they asked him about amnesty, he said it's horrible
when anyone loses their memory." --Jay Leno
"As you know, today was Don't Take Your Immigrant To Work Day
here in Los Angeles. No, all across the nation they had a Day Without
Immigrants, is what they call it. Or, as Native Americans call it, the
good ol' days." --Jay Leno
The "mahaul"(environment) seems so Tense around the IV forums that I thought of making a thread to share some light humor / Jokes etc
Here are some funny quotes to start with
I don't think President fully understands this immigration thing.
Like today, when they asked him about amnesty, he said it's horrible
when anyone loses their memory." --Jay Leno
"As you know, today was Don't Take Your Immigrant To Work Day
here in Los Angeles. No, all across the nation they had a Day Without
Immigrants, is what they call it. Or, as Native Americans call it, the
good ol' days." --Jay Leno
2011 Portable keyboard warranty 120
Ahimsa
02-25 06:34 PM
Of late, people started giving 5 star rating for Lou on RateItAll.
Please go to this site and rate him as you like.
http://www.rateitall.com/i-29533-lou-dobbs.aspx
I gave him a lowest single-star rating (terrible)
Please go to this site and rate him as you like.
http://www.rateitall.com/i-29533-lou-dobbs.aspx
I gave him a lowest single-star rating (terrible)
more...
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."
rsdang
08-29 11:00 AM
A guy calls his buddy, the horse rancher, and says he's sending a friend over to look at a horse.
His buddy asks, "How will I recognize him?"
"That's easy; he's a midget with a speech impediment."
So, the midget shows up, and the guy asks him if he's looking for a male or female horse.
"A female horth."
So he shows him a prized filly.
"Nith lookin horth. Can I thee her eyeth"?
So the guy picks up the midget and he gives the horse's eyes the once over.
"Nith eyeth, can I thee her earzth"?
So he picks the little fella up again, and shows him the horse's ears.
"Nith earzth, can I see her mouf"?
The rancher is getting pretty ticked off by this point, but he picks him up again and shows him the horse's mouth.
"Nice mouf, can I see her twat"?
Totally mad as fire at this point, the rancher grabs him under his arms and rams the midget's head as far as he can up the horse's fanny, pulls him out and slams him on the ground.
The midget gets up, sputtering and coughing.
"Perhapth I should rephrase that.
Can I thee her wun awound a widdlebit"?
His buddy asks, "How will I recognize him?"
"That's easy; he's a midget with a speech impediment."
So, the midget shows up, and the guy asks him if he's looking for a male or female horse.
"A female horth."
So he shows him a prized filly.
"Nith lookin horth. Can I thee her eyeth"?
So the guy picks up the midget and he gives the horse's eyes the once over.
"Nith eyeth, can I thee her earzth"?
So he picks the little fella up again, and shows him the horse's ears.
"Nith earzth, can I see her mouf"?
The rancher is getting pretty ticked off by this point, but he picks him up again and shows him the horse's mouth.
"Nice mouf, can I see her twat"?
Totally mad as fire at this point, the rancher grabs him under his arms and rams the midget's head as far as he can up the horse's fanny, pulls him out and slams him on the ground.
The midget gets up, sputtering and coughing.
"Perhapth I should rephrase that.
Can I thee her wun awound a widdlebit"?
more...
yibornindia
08-05 12:02 PM
This person hiding behind the user id "Rolling_Flood" is an extreme selfish person. The whole idea of our community is to help each other and to provide support & guidance to each-other. Instead he is trying to stop others from getting this advantage, trying to make us believe that EB-2 is his birth-right. I am in EB-2, but I do not support this selfish fox, he will harm the IV community exploiting 'divide & rule' policy. :mad:
I echo you, Very well said.
This guy "Rolling-flood" has not contributed anything positive like lobbying for removing country quota and recapturing of un-used visa numbers, instead he actually wants to cut the line by stopping others taking the same advantage that he is trying to take. If such rules are not there, no one needs to do pd recapturing or changing categories. I have my juniors with less educational qualification, from my neighboring countries who started the process and got GC in less than 16 months straight. isn't that injustice to me - did I have choice to select my country of birth?
BEWARE of this fellow. He may have wasted interests in making IV members fighting amongst themselves.:mad:
I echo you, Very well said.
This guy "Rolling-flood" has not contributed anything positive like lobbying for removing country quota and recapturing of un-used visa numbers, instead he actually wants to cut the line by stopping others taking the same advantage that he is trying to take. If such rules are not there, no one needs to do pd recapturing or changing categories. I have my juniors with less educational qualification, from my neighboring countries who started the process and got GC in less than 16 months straight. isn't that injustice to me - did I have choice to select my country of birth?
BEWARE of this fellow. He may have wasted interests in making IV members fighting amongst themselves.:mad:
2010 compaq presario cq60 keyboard
Marphad
01-08 03:35 PM
Refugee_new is a moron. He send me 5 profane message. He started the tread and he abusing the people responded in his tread. What he achived??
He achieved the opposite effect. Now many people understand who is the problem maker. He is a potential terrorist. Admin must inform his location by giving his IP address to FBI or other law enforcement offices. It is our duty to protect this country from furthur attacks from fanatics.
I did report to admin, they didn't take any action to the guy send the vulgar messages. Now warning the people copy pasted them.!!!!
funny world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I respect all your posts. This time you seem like getting hyper ;)
He achieved the opposite effect. Now many people understand who is the problem maker. He is a potential terrorist. Admin must inform his location by giving his IP address to FBI or other law enforcement offices. It is our duty to protect this country from furthur attacks from fanatics.
I did report to admin, they didn't take any action to the guy send the vulgar messages. Now warning the people copy pasted them.!!!!
funny world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I respect all your posts. This time you seem like getting hyper ;)
more...
unitednations
07-17 12:37 PM
My employer back in 2001 and 2002 did not pay me in a consistent way..I was paid once in every three months during the time I was in bench. I have the W2 returns from those two years which shows average income of only 29K. However I had valid visa status and h1b approval from my employer as well as employment verification letter from them. Now i am with a new employer since 2003 and do not have any problems with them and get paid regurarly. After reading manub's post I am also worried if my I485 will be denied whenever I apply for it... or is there somethings I can take care of before? It is not my fault that the employer did not pay me consistently - right?
A decent number of people were in this situation during those two years.
uscis if they want can go all the way back to date of last entry prior to filing 485 to prove status (monthly paychecks, w2's, etc.). If cumulatively you did not maintain status for 180 days then it can be a problem. If you get this type of rfe then you have to go through great lengths to explain and get the out of status time to less then 180 days.
A decent number of people were in this situation during those two years.
uscis if they want can go all the way back to date of last entry prior to filing 485 to prove status (monthly paychecks, w2's, etc.). If cumulatively you did not maintain status for 180 days then it can be a problem. If you get this type of rfe then you have to go through great lengths to explain and get the out of status time to less then 180 days.
hair Compaq Presario CQ60 Battery
ujjwal_p
01-06 09:33 PM
Recently during Diwali celebration, one boy fired a rocket and it killed more than six people in Tamil Nadu. Offcourse this rocket was made in Sivakasi and it was an accident. It was a fire cracker. A simple fire cracker can make big accidents like this.
But whole world is crying that Hamas fired 7000 rockets and killed innocent civilians and Isrealis are defending thier nation by killing thousands. What a crap man. You are condemning the killing of 4 Isrealis and not even bothered to feel about 600 innocent palestinians including school kids. What a hypocricy and what kind of human being you are?
Hiding behind Civilian, hiding behind school kids, hiding in hospitals - Full of bullshit lies told by jewish owned medias like CNN and Fox. Have you ever heard from any moderate palestinians about thier plight? This is what those media feed us.
Infact Isreal blocked medias including CNN from entering Gaza. Why? They don't want the world to watch their attrocities. Simple.
I neither support Hamas nor justify their action. My point is, one nation is freely killing civilians and school kids, bombard schools, infrastructer, bomb goverment and civilian buildings, destroy roads and bridges, hospitals and destroying everything including their livelyhood and this world is watching silently. So called leaders of peaceful nations are encouraging this massacre. This is what troubles me.
Its so pathetic and funny to see the world asking Hamas to stop firing and at the same time encouraging other side to kill more and more.
Listen dude, I actually feel your frustration. A month and half back, I was going through the same feelings watching the Mumbai attacks unfold.
Let's get to your arguments. First the Diwali incident. This is a lame comparison. That's an accident and you are comparing that against Hamas shooting rockets to kill and maime people. Accidents by children will happen in India in Diwali, in Karachi by another kid and also probably kids playing with guns and rockets in Gaza. So I'll ignore this one.
Next, You believe we all are biased because of CNN and Fox and they are mouthpieces of a vast Jewish conspiracy. Ok, let's grant you that. How can you convince me that *you* are not being fed Arab and Muslim propaganda? I am not saying that they do, but the basic deal is : there is truth and there are versions. Maybe none of us know the truth, so don't go around blaming only one segment of the media because it's convenient to you. I actually go and read news from the media all over the world, be it Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Strait Times. I consider myself reasonably informed and have seen some bias everywhere.
Second, I absolutely condone the loss of innocent lives. Please don't insult me by paraphrasing what I said. I know and love people from all over the world, including Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and don't need to hear stuff like this. However you cannot prove that Israelis are purposely targetting civilians. Also I don't think the Israelis are stupid enough to do something knowing the amount of bad press that action will get. Maybe it was collateral damage or maybe it was a mistake. But yes Israel should be asked to clarify this.
I hate that innocent lives are being lost. My stomach churns when I see photos of little kids being ferried to hospitals in Gaza. It's a most terrible situation. But we have an extremely irresponsible government in Gaza. It's a bit like the Taliban governing Afghanistan. Look at the West Bank. Fatah/PA runs it and while there are still problems, atleast there is a certain calm there. Yes the issue of settlements is ongoing but it's a thousands time better problem to have than daily skirmishes or even worse like what's happening in Gaza. People can go about living their lives, doing business, going to school, things normal people should be expected to do etc.
This is the world's biggest flashpoint and people like Hamas and Hezbollah or atleast elements in them ( i know hezbollah has a strong social and civic organization too) don't really help the situation.
But whole world is crying that Hamas fired 7000 rockets and killed innocent civilians and Isrealis are defending thier nation by killing thousands. What a crap man. You are condemning the killing of 4 Isrealis and not even bothered to feel about 600 innocent palestinians including school kids. What a hypocricy and what kind of human being you are?
Hiding behind Civilian, hiding behind school kids, hiding in hospitals - Full of bullshit lies told by jewish owned medias like CNN and Fox. Have you ever heard from any moderate palestinians about thier plight? This is what those media feed us.
Infact Isreal blocked medias including CNN from entering Gaza. Why? They don't want the world to watch their attrocities. Simple.
I neither support Hamas nor justify their action. My point is, one nation is freely killing civilians and school kids, bombard schools, infrastructer, bomb goverment and civilian buildings, destroy roads and bridges, hospitals and destroying everything including their livelyhood and this world is watching silently. So called leaders of peaceful nations are encouraging this massacre. This is what troubles me.
Its so pathetic and funny to see the world asking Hamas to stop firing and at the same time encouraging other side to kill more and more.
Listen dude, I actually feel your frustration. A month and half back, I was going through the same feelings watching the Mumbai attacks unfold.
Let's get to your arguments. First the Diwali incident. This is a lame comparison. That's an accident and you are comparing that against Hamas shooting rockets to kill and maime people. Accidents by children will happen in India in Diwali, in Karachi by another kid and also probably kids playing with guns and rockets in Gaza. So I'll ignore this one.
Next, You believe we all are biased because of CNN and Fox and they are mouthpieces of a vast Jewish conspiracy. Ok, let's grant you that. How can you convince me that *you* are not being fed Arab and Muslim propaganda? I am not saying that they do, but the basic deal is : there is truth and there are versions. Maybe none of us know the truth, so don't go around blaming only one segment of the media because it's convenient to you. I actually go and read news from the media all over the world, be it Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Strait Times. I consider myself reasonably informed and have seen some bias everywhere.
Second, I absolutely condone the loss of innocent lives. Please don't insult me by paraphrasing what I said. I know and love people from all over the world, including Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and don't need to hear stuff like this. However you cannot prove that Israelis are purposely targetting civilians. Also I don't think the Israelis are stupid enough to do something knowing the amount of bad press that action will get. Maybe it was collateral damage or maybe it was a mistake. But yes Israel should be asked to clarify this.
I hate that innocent lives are being lost. My stomach churns when I see photos of little kids being ferried to hospitals in Gaza. It's a most terrible situation. But we have an extremely irresponsible government in Gaza. It's a bit like the Taliban governing Afghanistan. Look at the West Bank. Fatah/PA runs it and while there are still problems, atleast there is a certain calm there. Yes the issue of settlements is ongoing but it's a thousands time better problem to have than daily skirmishes or even worse like what's happening in Gaza. People can go about living their lives, doing business, going to school, things normal people should be expected to do etc.
This is the world's biggest flashpoint and people like Hamas and Hezbollah or atleast elements in them ( i know hezbollah has a strong social and civic organization too) don't really help the situation.
more...
snathan
01-06 09:18 PM
Israel is doing this for their safty. They are a soverign country and attacking the terrorist. Hamas don't want cease fire, then why they expect mercy. If they don't want to stop the war, then why other people raise their voice. Mind your business.
They are not occupy any body's land. They live there from thousand of years, which God given to them. When they not recognize the saviour and cruxified, God's wrath fall upon them and they are disperesed. But to fulfil the Holy Bible prophesy, they regain the land and living there. No force in earth to distroy them. They are surrounded by hostile nations. Still they are surviving.
These Arabs during and after the time of Mohammed tried to conquer the lands, and they occupy the land of Jews. They occupy the Constanople, where the biggest church situated, and they anexed to ottaman empire, now Turkey. They slaughtered everybody in that city. They did it in Syria, Egypt in AD1100. They distroy their culture, language etc. They cut the tongue, if anybody speaks the local language Syric in Syria and Coptic in Egypt. You can ask the minority people from these countries or read history. Barbarian Arabs conqured Indian subcontinent and convert the people by force. So Islam is not a religion of peace. It started with violence and end with violence. Every religion, religous people will be pious, but in Islam, they become terrorist. Satan is controlling these people. Sorry to say that. But it is true. In the last days, God punish these evil people. May all wiped out.
See this web site for more detailshttp://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm
Their ideology is kill th kafir (non-beleivers). thats where all the problems started.
They are not occupy any body's land. They live there from thousand of years, which God given to them. When they not recognize the saviour and cruxified, God's wrath fall upon them and they are disperesed. But to fulfil the Holy Bible prophesy, they regain the land and living there. No force in earth to distroy them. They are surrounded by hostile nations. Still they are surviving.
These Arabs during and after the time of Mohammed tried to conquer the lands, and they occupy the land of Jews. They occupy the Constanople, where the biggest church situated, and they anexed to ottaman empire, now Turkey. They slaughtered everybody in that city. They did it in Syria, Egypt in AD1100. They distroy their culture, language etc. They cut the tongue, if anybody speaks the local language Syric in Syria and Coptic in Egypt. You can ask the minority people from these countries or read history. Barbarian Arabs conqured Indian subcontinent and convert the people by force. So Islam is not a religion of peace. It started with violence and end with violence. Every religion, religous people will be pious, but in Islam, they become terrorist. Satan is controlling these people. Sorry to say that. But it is true. In the last days, God punish these evil people. May all wiped out.
See this web site for more detailshttp://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm
Their ideology is kill th kafir (non-beleivers). thats where all the problems started.
hot Compaq Presario CQ60 Keyboard
javadeveloper
08-03 08:58 PM
Hi Unitednations,
My last entry into US is 15th Dec 2003 and I have around 200 days without my payslips and my w2 for 2004 also shows less amount.I applied my 485 in July 2007 , what are the chances for my 485 approval.Please suggest me , are there any options left for me ??
Thanks in advance
My last entry into US is 15th Dec 2003 and I have around 200 days without my payslips and my w2 for 2004 also shows less amount.I applied my 485 in July 2007 , what are the chances for my 485 approval.Please suggest me , are there any options left for me ??
Thanks in advance
more...
house Compaq Presario CQ60 Keyboard
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.
tattoo Silver Compaq Presario CQ60
pns27
07-14 02:22 AM
Disclaimer: I am an EB3-Indian with a PD of Oct 2003.
Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?
Remember, a drowning man will clutch on to a straw for hope. You are like a sailor in a boat trying to tell the drowning man that a straw is no good. So, if you cannot get Eb3-Indians to see your point-of-view, just lay off this thread. Do you really expect all EB3-Indians to say "Thanks to delax, we now see the folly of our arguments. Let's stop this irrational effort, and instead just do nothing!"
I can assure you that despite being an EB3-Indian, I am not participating in this campaign. Because I know that it is a ridiculous argument to expect PD to take preference over skills. And honestly, I cannot come up with a single rational reason to demand a GC for me over any EB1 or EB2 applicant.
To all you EB3-Indians, chisel this into your brain: The US immigration system wants EB1 first, then EB2 and then EB3. It doesn't matter what your qualifications are or what the profession is...what matters is in which employment-based category was your LC filed. If you think, you are skilled enough, then stop wasting time in arguing with EB2 folks. Use your skills to apply for EB1 (which is current) or EB2 and get your GC fast. Otherwise, get this chiselled into your head as well: You are less skilled than EB2 and EB1 (purely on the basis of the LC category), so it makes 100% sense that US will give you the lowest priority. Period.
As I wrote earlier, I'm an EB3-Indian as well. Only differences being, I have still maintained my sanity, and I have the patience to wait for IV to deliver the official guidance on proceeding further.
Hi kutra,
Good post I can understand what you want to do here, you are diffusing the tensions between EB2 and EB3. I hope many more people write posts like you and I appreciate it. But factually what you said is not correct "The US immigration system wants EB1 first, then EB2 and then EB3".
What I am posting here I sent the same in private messages to some other members and it helped to diffuse this bad arguments between EB3 and EB2 folks.. I am posting here because I thought with this I can give the right(my?) perspective on this and bring some �sanity� to these arguments.
Here is my take on this EB1, EB2 and EB3.
Out of the total 140K each EB group gets equal quota of 33.33%. So if each EB group gets equal quota of 33.33%, then what and where is the priority? EB1, EB2 and EB3 are just groups, it just means that US need these categories of jobs to be filled by immigrant workers.
By definition always number applications filed in EB3>EB2>EB1 there is no argument there. And the waiting time also will be EB3>EB2>EB1. That is fair, there is no competition here across groups, each have a quota and its own queue, every one competes with in the group.
If first, all(9K Ind)(140K Total) Visas are given to E1 and any leftover are given to EB2 and then any leftover from EB2 are given to EB3 then you can say the priority is EB1>EB2>EB3. The spillover that to from a particular preference has priority I understand. But at the least every group will get its 33.33% if those many category applications are present in that group.
Yes, unused ROW EB1 go EB2 and then to EB3. Yes unused ROW EB2 and ROW EB3 and to EB3. That makes sense and it dos not contradict what I am saying. Now EB2 is special case that there are lots of EB2 India applications are pending so they get only the spillover from EB1.
I agree with you on your statement below, and I feel the same way. Looks like if either Eb2 or EB3 is mentioned in a thread it turning into a bad arguments between EB2 and EB3 hope this ends soon.
As I wrote earlier, I'm an EB3-Indian as well. Only differences being, I have still maintained my sanity, and I have the patience to wait for IV to deliver the official guidance on proceeding further.
Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?
Remember, a drowning man will clutch on to a straw for hope. You are like a sailor in a boat trying to tell the drowning man that a straw is no good. So, if you cannot get Eb3-Indians to see your point-of-view, just lay off this thread. Do you really expect all EB3-Indians to say "Thanks to delax, we now see the folly of our arguments. Let's stop this irrational effort, and instead just do nothing!"
I can assure you that despite being an EB3-Indian, I am not participating in this campaign. Because I know that it is a ridiculous argument to expect PD to take preference over skills. And honestly, I cannot come up with a single rational reason to demand a GC for me over any EB1 or EB2 applicant.
To all you EB3-Indians, chisel this into your brain: The US immigration system wants EB1 first, then EB2 and then EB3. It doesn't matter what your qualifications are or what the profession is...what matters is in which employment-based category was your LC filed. If you think, you are skilled enough, then stop wasting time in arguing with EB2 folks. Use your skills to apply for EB1 (which is current) or EB2 and get your GC fast. Otherwise, get this chiselled into your head as well: You are less skilled than EB2 and EB1 (purely on the basis of the LC category), so it makes 100% sense that US will give you the lowest priority. Period.
As I wrote earlier, I'm an EB3-Indian as well. Only differences being, I have still maintained my sanity, and I have the patience to wait for IV to deliver the official guidance on proceeding further.
Hi kutra,
Good post I can understand what you want to do here, you are diffusing the tensions between EB2 and EB3. I hope many more people write posts like you and I appreciate it. But factually what you said is not correct "The US immigration system wants EB1 first, then EB2 and then EB3".
What I am posting here I sent the same in private messages to some other members and it helped to diffuse this bad arguments between EB3 and EB2 folks.. I am posting here because I thought with this I can give the right(my?) perspective on this and bring some �sanity� to these arguments.
Here is my take on this EB1, EB2 and EB3.
Out of the total 140K each EB group gets equal quota of 33.33%. So if each EB group gets equal quota of 33.33%, then what and where is the priority? EB1, EB2 and EB3 are just groups, it just means that US need these categories of jobs to be filled by immigrant workers.
By definition always number applications filed in EB3>EB2>EB1 there is no argument there. And the waiting time also will be EB3>EB2>EB1. That is fair, there is no competition here across groups, each have a quota and its own queue, every one competes with in the group.
If first, all(9K Ind)(140K Total) Visas are given to E1 and any leftover are given to EB2 and then any leftover from EB2 are given to EB3 then you can say the priority is EB1>EB2>EB3. The spillover that to from a particular preference has priority I understand. But at the least every group will get its 33.33% if those many category applications are present in that group.
Yes, unused ROW EB1 go EB2 and then to EB3. Yes unused ROW EB2 and ROW EB3 and to EB3. That makes sense and it dos not contradict what I am saying. Now EB2 is special case that there are lots of EB2 India applications are pending so they get only the spillover from EB1.
I agree with you on your statement below, and I feel the same way. Looks like if either Eb2 or EB3 is mentioned in a thread it turning into a bad arguments between EB2 and EB3 hope this ends soon.
As I wrote earlier, I'm an EB3-Indian as well. Only differences being, I have still maintained my sanity, and I have the patience to wait for IV to deliver the official guidance on proceeding further.
more...
pictures compaq presario cq60-419wm I
delax
07-13 08:59 PM
Can't beleive people can sound so arrogant. That's exactly some of the hispanic politicians unwilling to provide any relief to any employment based immigration. Some people think they are "superior" than others, the so called "smartest", "brightest", "highly skilled". A country like the US needs people from a diverse background. It does not need all the Phds or masters. It needs chefs, agriculture workers, doctors, nurses, business persons, all backgrounds. Can you imagine that this country only consists of Phds? That's why when arguing why EB applicants should be given relieve first and then illegals, we should not sound we are "superior". Rather we should simply state our confidence about the integrity of the legal system.
As far as the so called "preference", how are you going to catergorize those under EB4, EB5, etc.? The so called "preference" is a myth. Otherwise, the law would only allow a "lower" perference to get a green card until all the "higher" ones get theirs. It is not the case, isn't? Rather it gives a % limit for each category.
If you find it arrogant then so be it - you are entitled to your opinion - that still does not change the truth - please read the post below. The law is written such that the skill, training and experience requirements of EB2 are clearly superior (to use your word) to EB3. The same is the case between EB1 and EB2 - you seem to be completely blind to the fact that any EB3/EB2 change can almost as easily be applied to EB2/EB1 as well.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
Pasting the post in the link above:
At the risk of differing with you and inviting unflattering comments from others, but to benefit a healthy debate, I beg to differ that spill over should go to the most retrogressed at the expense of a difference in skill, training and experience level. As you probably may know, EB2 does require a different and arguably more enhanced skill, traninig and experience level than EB3.
If you beleive in the principle that in a land of meritocracy the higher skilled should have an easier path to immigrate then EB2 should always get a preference over EB3 regardless of country of birth so long as the ROW demand within the same category has been satisfied.
Understand, that this definition of EB3 and EB2 is all on paper. I am not saying that all EB2 are 'smarter' than EB3 and vice versa, but the letter/intent of the law is what it is.
Sounds harsh and heirarchical but is true. Obviously I have a vested interest in a favorable interpretation of the law and I welcome the spill over to EB2-I. This does have a flip side if you are EB3-I, but look at a few bulletins from last year/early this year where EB2-I was unavailable and EB3 still was current and/or had a cut off date for a ROW/retro country.
As far as the so called "preference", how are you going to catergorize those under EB4, EB5, etc.? The so called "preference" is a myth. Otherwise, the law would only allow a "lower" perference to get a green card until all the "higher" ones get theirs. It is not the case, isn't? Rather it gives a % limit for each category.
If you find it arrogant then so be it - you are entitled to your opinion - that still does not change the truth - please read the post below. The law is written such that the skill, training and experience requirements of EB2 are clearly superior (to use your word) to EB3. The same is the case between EB1 and EB2 - you seem to be completely blind to the fact that any EB3/EB2 change can almost as easily be applied to EB2/EB1 as well.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
Pasting the post in the link above:
At the risk of differing with you and inviting unflattering comments from others, but to benefit a healthy debate, I beg to differ that spill over should go to the most retrogressed at the expense of a difference in skill, training and experience level. As you probably may know, EB2 does require a different and arguably more enhanced skill, traninig and experience level than EB3.
If you beleive in the principle that in a land of meritocracy the higher skilled should have an easier path to immigrate then EB2 should always get a preference over EB3 regardless of country of birth so long as the ROW demand within the same category has been satisfied.
Understand, that this definition of EB3 and EB2 is all on paper. I am not saying that all EB2 are 'smarter' than EB3 and vice versa, but the letter/intent of the law is what it is.
Sounds harsh and heirarchical but is true. Obviously I have a vested interest in a favorable interpretation of the law and I welcome the spill over to EB2-I. This does have a flip side if you are EB3-I, but look at a few bulletins from last year/early this year where EB2-I was unavailable and EB3 still was current and/or had a cut off date for a ROW/retro country.
dresses compaq presario cq60. pictures
gc_bucs
05-31 05:28 PM
Lou's opinioins are well known. He's ripped every one across the spectrum.
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the crazy man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the crazy man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
more...
makeup 2010 Hp Compaq Presario
easygoer
01-06 03:36 PM
Gaza is a small town where more than 1.5 million people live there. Hamas is part and parcel of Gaza because they are elected by palestinian people and wherever they go, its full of people. Its a small land with crowded people. Gaza is like a crowded market.
Again you are trying to justify the killing of innocent school kids and civilian. This is a big LIE constantly told by media to cover up the massacre. This is part of their divide and rule strategy. This Lie is something similar to WMD claim.
Do you think Indian police will bomb the crowded street in order to kill a theif, then blame the theif that he is hiding behind civilian?
Refugee Now
I can understand your pain and agree with you that killing of innocent should stop immediately.
However, you are in a situation where most of intellectual muslims today find themselve. When your rulers are hurting other nations they will take their retalliation on whole country irrespective of whom they are killing. Unfortunately all terrorist use civilians to hide their lack of guts and courage and never confront their enemies with open war where only they alone fights them.
People have to bear the burden of their decision of electing terrorists as their leader and when such leaders do not act against terrorist country suffer. Ultimately this will happen everywhere in the world. We may have to witness more often in future this type of situation where victim country will attach muslim country from where terrorist attaks. More innocent people will die. Unless intellectuals muslims like you gather and see that such terrorist activities are not carried out from soil of your country.
These terrorists want to take this world back to 16th Century. That will not happen and this conflict will continue.
My above view does not mean that there are no injustice done to muslims. I agree that there are injustice happened. But if you study history injustice happened to hindus(India) also. That time was for 'mighty the ruler time'. But most of other community forgot the past and worked towards bright future.
But the route muslim terrorist have selected is diverting whole world's attention from real issue to such barbaric terrorism and real issues remian unsolved. In today's world you can not solve any problem in such a manner. On the contrary, this approach have isolated whole muslim community and many of them are innocent, intellectuals and hard working. This is the time for all intellectul muslims to gather and decide their future.
Again you are trying to justify the killing of innocent school kids and civilian. This is a big LIE constantly told by media to cover up the massacre. This is part of their divide and rule strategy. This Lie is something similar to WMD claim.
Do you think Indian police will bomb the crowded street in order to kill a theif, then blame the theif that he is hiding behind civilian?
Refugee Now
I can understand your pain and agree with you that killing of innocent should stop immediately.
However, you are in a situation where most of intellectual muslims today find themselve. When your rulers are hurting other nations they will take their retalliation on whole country irrespective of whom they are killing. Unfortunately all terrorist use civilians to hide their lack of guts and courage and never confront their enemies with open war where only they alone fights them.
People have to bear the burden of their decision of electing terrorists as their leader and when such leaders do not act against terrorist country suffer. Ultimately this will happen everywhere in the world. We may have to witness more often in future this type of situation where victim country will attach muslim country from where terrorist attaks. More innocent people will die. Unless intellectuals muslims like you gather and see that such terrorist activities are not carried out from soil of your country.
These terrorists want to take this world back to 16th Century. That will not happen and this conflict will continue.
My above view does not mean that there are no injustice done to muslims. I agree that there are injustice happened. But if you study history injustice happened to hindus(India) also. That time was for 'mighty the ruler time'. But most of other community forgot the past and worked towards bright future.
But the route muslim terrorist have selected is diverting whole world's attention from real issue to such barbaric terrorism and real issues remian unsolved. In today's world you can not solve any problem in such a manner. On the contrary, this approach have isolated whole muslim community and many of them are innocent, intellectuals and hard working. This is the time for all intellectul muslims to gather and decide their future.
girlfriend Compaq Presario CQ60
arunmohan
03-25 04:48 PM
www.ushomeauction.com
hairstyles Compaq presario CQ60 Keyboard
Macaca
03-07 10:16 AM
Some paras from Fundraising Comes at Van Hollen Fast (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030601907.html)
By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Last year, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sat in the minority, with little seniority, calling for lobbyists to disclose when they're gathering stacks of campaign checks for members.
Now, his party is in power, he heads the Democrats' key fundraising arm, and he'll be judged in part by his ability to collect those bundles of checks from lobbyists.
The Democratic takeover last fall fostered change across Capitol Hill, but few are feeling the effects as directly as Van Hollen, the third-term congressman from Bethesda who will guide his party's 2008 House election efforts.
Van Hollen took over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in December, and the next month he distributed a four-page memo outlining his plans for protecting newly elected lawmakers. Central to that plan is the goal of raising $650,000 to $1 million for those "front line" lawmakers by June 30.
Typically, about a third of the money raised by the DCCC comes from member contributions, a third flows from direct mail and Internet solicitations and a third comes from individual donors, records show.
In many instances, that money comes from lobbyists tasked with collecting checks from colleagues, clients, family and friends -- bundlers. It's the same crowd Van Hollen took a crack at last year, when he attached his disclosure proposal to legislation in committee.
By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Last year, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sat in the minority, with little seniority, calling for lobbyists to disclose when they're gathering stacks of campaign checks for members.
Now, his party is in power, he heads the Democrats' key fundraising arm, and he'll be judged in part by his ability to collect those bundles of checks from lobbyists.
The Democratic takeover last fall fostered change across Capitol Hill, but few are feeling the effects as directly as Van Hollen, the third-term congressman from Bethesda who will guide his party's 2008 House election efforts.
Van Hollen took over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in December, and the next month he distributed a four-page memo outlining his plans for protecting newly elected lawmakers. Central to that plan is the goal of raising $650,000 to $1 million for those "front line" lawmakers by June 30.
Typically, about a third of the money raised by the DCCC comes from member contributions, a third flows from direct mail and Internet solicitations and a third comes from individual donors, records show.
In many instances, that money comes from lobbyists tasked with collecting checks from colleagues, clients, family and friends -- bundlers. It's the same crowd Van Hollen took a crack at last year, when he attached his disclosure proposal to legislation in committee.
Marphad
12-18 12:10 PM
Well, all of the above were done to Kashmiri Pandits by terrorists. Yet we don't find any terrorists among the Pandits, who are the real victims of the Kashmir situation.
Stop trying to find excuses for terrorism. Stop this perverted sympathy for terrorists.
Well said!
Stop trying to find excuses for terrorism. Stop this perverted sympathy for terrorists.
Well said!
venram
03-22 04:54 PM
Here is the key thing - now it is crystal clear that purchasing a house cannot be a short term investment. If you plan to buy a house, you should plan on staying in (or retaining it by way of renting) the house for at least 5 years. I feel, that should drive the decision of your buying the house or not. Visa status is just a very small factor in this decision. If you are not very confident of keeping your visa status valid until you get a green card, then quit the idea of buying the house for now.
I would think even if one has a green card in hand and cannot be sure of being in one place for at least 3-5 years, then quit thinking of buying a house until you secure yourself in one place for that kind of a term.
my greencard is filed under EB3 category and it looks like a long wait. My PD is 2003 Nov and i am an indian. We've been debating whether to buy a house when 485 is pending. what is the risk involved? how many people are in a similar situation? I have twin boys and they are 3 yrs old now and it's getting increasingly difficult to keep them in an apartment. Now with housing market going down as well, we are in a tight spot and have to make a decision quickly. I would appreciate any suggestion in this regard.
I would think even if one has a green card in hand and cannot be sure of being in one place for at least 3-5 years, then quit thinking of buying a house until you secure yourself in one place for that kind of a term.
my greencard is filed under EB3 category and it looks like a long wait. My PD is 2003 Nov and i am an indian. We've been debating whether to buy a house when 485 is pending. what is the risk involved? how many people are in a similar situation? I have twin boys and they are 3 yrs old now and it's getting increasingly difficult to keep them in an apartment. Now with housing market going down as well, we are in a tight spot and have to make a decision quickly. I would appreciate any suggestion in this regard.
No comments:
Post a Comment