mbartosik
04-09 12:38 AM
There are a few banks with names like "first immigrant bank" around NY.
If they turned you down, you could say, hey, just remind me what the name of the bank is?
Of course H1B, L1, J1 are non-immigrant visas (with dual intent) to be more precise. But you get the joke.
You might consider using a mortgage broker.
They get commission on the loan so they will work harder to find something. Only be careful they don't stick you with something with crap terms. Also if you give a deposit make it not only contingent on mortgage, but contingent on mortgage at no more than X% APR and Y mortgage terms, that way if the mortgage company changes the deal at closing (bait and switch - dirty practice - more likely to occur with a broker) then you can just get your deposit back and walk away. In this market, a small deposit (if any) should be acceptable.
Also if the realtor selling the property is a licensed mortgage broker, after you have agreed a price, you could use them to get your mortgage. There is an obvious conflict of interest and you are trying to work it to your advantage. If they cannot find you a mortgage with terms that you like they lose on both sides of the deal! That's what I did, and I'm very happy with the mortgage deal I got.
Also do research on mortgage terms. Understand what is ARM, LIBOR, t-note, types of fees and penalties, you are high skilled -- do your research so you know as much as the mortgage broker on technical terms. If you understand the terms and they know that you know, then you will be taken more seriously.
If they turned you down, you could say, hey, just remind me what the name of the bank is?
Of course H1B, L1, J1 are non-immigrant visas (with dual intent) to be more precise. But you get the joke.
You might consider using a mortgage broker.
They get commission on the loan so they will work harder to find something. Only be careful they don't stick you with something with crap terms. Also if you give a deposit make it not only contingent on mortgage, but contingent on mortgage at no more than X% APR and Y mortgage terms, that way if the mortgage company changes the deal at closing (bait and switch - dirty practice - more likely to occur with a broker) then you can just get your deposit back and walk away. In this market, a small deposit (if any) should be acceptable.
Also if the realtor selling the property is a licensed mortgage broker, after you have agreed a price, you could use them to get your mortgage. There is an obvious conflict of interest and you are trying to work it to your advantage. If they cannot find you a mortgage with terms that you like they lose on both sides of the deal! That's what I did, and I'm very happy with the mortgage deal I got.
Also do research on mortgage terms. Understand what is ARM, LIBOR, t-note, types of fees and penalties, you are high skilled -- do your research so you know as much as the mortgage broker on technical terms. If you understand the terms and they know that you know, then you will be taken more seriously.
wallpaper Onehunga - Universal Tattoo
srkamath
07-13 03:19 PM
It is funny how EB2s are crying like little babies. Just a hint of EB3 getting more visas is making you guys sweat. You people have all the luck, nothing is going to happen so RELAX.
Just remember that there are a lot of EB3 out there with Masters degrees, like myself, and waiting since early 2002.
EB3s - mail out the letter PLEASE!!!!!
Go ahead do it..... send a badly written letter.
The content of the letter does not read like it was written by a college graduate - at least seek help with writing a professional letter, it sounds very archaic ! Bad expression, poor grammar, poor reasoning, unreadable.
The letter will fare better if it is at least readable.
I'm in EB2 but i will continue to help in IV efforts, and contribute $$ when i can for all efforts EB2 or EB3. I understand the pain of EB3 applicants, so do several (most) others.
Your posts like ".....crying like little babies...." will not help......
Just remember that there are a lot of EB3 out there with Masters degrees, like myself, and waiting since early 2002.
EB3s - mail out the letter PLEASE!!!!!
Go ahead do it..... send a badly written letter.
The content of the letter does not read like it was written by a college graduate - at least seek help with writing a professional letter, it sounds very archaic ! Bad expression, poor grammar, poor reasoning, unreadable.
The letter will fare better if it is at least readable.
I'm in EB2 but i will continue to help in IV efforts, and contribute $$ when i can for all efforts EB2 or EB3. I understand the pain of EB3 applicants, so do several (most) others.
Your posts like ".....crying like little babies...." will not help......
krishna.ahd
12-27 05:26 PM
I believe one more time - our spineless creatures/politicians - wasted chance of cleaning up terrorist camps - at least for now
2011 Eyeball tattoo extreme tattoo
sundevil
03-25 12:52 PM
Thanks UN. Gosh!! this thread is an autopsy of current affairs in EB immigration. Very good going, with what is now a misleading title.
Do they have any filtering mechanism for lot of these fake future employer GC apps through sister/subsidiary or pay for GC companies. We have had few people come on these forums before or after approval of GC asking what happens if they never work for the sponsoring company.
I personally know someone who got a GC in 2002 without ever working(not for sponsoring employer or even for some other company) and since never worked in the field they got GC. I bet that involved a lot of faking but slipped through every test.
You see on all these ac21 issues we rely on uscis memos. Every one of these memos state pending change to the regulations; we are going to follow the principles of this memo.
it has been 8 years and they still haven't changed the regulations. Memos can be changed at their whim at any time.
Currently; uscis position is that if someone ports to another company; they are not supposed to check the ability to pay criteria. However; they left themselvees an out that theey can check the genuineness of the ac21 employer. Becasuse of this last statement; what they have been doing is asking for ac21 employer tax returuns, and quarterly wage reports. If you are already on payroll then size of company doesn't matter. However; if you are not on payrroll and it is a very small company then they can challnge it.
btw; I am not epecting quota to finish early this year. Many companies/lawyers are very frustrated with h-1b right now. I was talking to education evaluator and he told me that there is litteally no business right now. Companies I know of how filed 70 cases last year are not filing any this year due to a combination of issues (iowa issue, lack of approvals and great demand for tansfers by thos who were laid off or had theirr h-1b's cancelled.
Right now; newer companies who don't have much experience with h-1b are going into the lions den without knowing there is a lion in there.
Do they have any filtering mechanism for lot of these fake future employer GC apps through sister/subsidiary or pay for GC companies. We have had few people come on these forums before or after approval of GC asking what happens if they never work for the sponsoring company.
I personally know someone who got a GC in 2002 without ever working(not for sponsoring employer or even for some other company) and since never worked in the field they got GC. I bet that involved a lot of faking but slipped through every test.
You see on all these ac21 issues we rely on uscis memos. Every one of these memos state pending change to the regulations; we are going to follow the principles of this memo.
it has been 8 years and they still haven't changed the regulations. Memos can be changed at their whim at any time.
Currently; uscis position is that if someone ports to another company; they are not supposed to check the ability to pay criteria. However; they left themselvees an out that theey can check the genuineness of the ac21 employer. Becasuse of this last statement; what they have been doing is asking for ac21 employer tax returuns, and quarterly wage reports. If you are already on payroll then size of company doesn't matter. However; if you are not on payrroll and it is a very small company then they can challnge it.
btw; I am not epecting quota to finish early this year. Many companies/lawyers are very frustrated with h-1b right now. I was talking to education evaluator and he told me that there is litteally no business right now. Companies I know of how filed 70 cases last year are not filing any this year due to a combination of issues (iowa issue, lack of approvals and great demand for tansfers by thos who were laid off or had theirr h-1b's cancelled.
Right now; newer companies who don't have much experience with h-1b are going into the lions den without knowing there is a lion in there.
more...
sanju
12-18 05:41 PM
Why is it that there are no true democracies in the middle east? Have you ever thought of that? Do you realize that in a country like Saudi Arabia women are oppressed and they have to follow the dictates of the mullahs!! Every person, irrespective of their personal faith is subject to the Sharia laws!! Is that justice!! Why is it that Muslims don’t see oppression within their own country and try wage a jihad against that? Why is it that Muslims don’t want to spend time and effort cleaning up their own house?
Let me tell why, because it has got to be someone else's fault. Those terrorist who attacked America no 911 had nothing to do with Chechenya or Palestine or Darfur. They were merely blinded by their twisted world view that was based on their twisted belief system. And the applied to the terrorist who attacked Mumbai on 11/26.
Although it is difficult to swallow what these misguided guys did, it is even more difficult to see EDUCATED LITERATE people defend barbaric heinous inhuman actions in the name of religion. I can't even image in the wildest of my dreams anybody's GOD will tell someone to conduct such acts and anybody's GOD will tell that person to defend such acts. This has got be work of an extremely inferior mind which says - lets try to reason out why such attacks are conducted on unarmed civilians including woman and children. Denfending such acts in the name of religion is worst than participating in this crime against humanity.
And if I am incharge and decision maker, if the objective of terrorist is to draw attention to a specifc cause to solve it to their liking, I will make sure that that issue is never EVER addressed. No compromise and no negotitions with terrorists, EVER.
.
Let me tell why, because it has got to be someone else's fault. Those terrorist who attacked America no 911 had nothing to do with Chechenya or Palestine or Darfur. They were merely blinded by their twisted world view that was based on their twisted belief system. And the applied to the terrorist who attacked Mumbai on 11/26.
Although it is difficult to swallow what these misguided guys did, it is even more difficult to see EDUCATED LITERATE people defend barbaric heinous inhuman actions in the name of religion. I can't even image in the wildest of my dreams anybody's GOD will tell someone to conduct such acts and anybody's GOD will tell that person to defend such acts. This has got be work of an extremely inferior mind which says - lets try to reason out why such attacks are conducted on unarmed civilians including woman and children. Denfending such acts in the name of religion is worst than participating in this crime against humanity.
And if I am incharge and decision maker, if the objective of terrorist is to draw attention to a specifc cause to solve it to their liking, I will make sure that that issue is never EVER addressed. No compromise and no negotitions with terrorists, EVER.
.
Macaca
12-27 08:16 PM
How Republicans prevailed on the Hill (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/531oekhp.asp) By Whitney Blake | The Weekly Standard, 12/27/2007
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
more...
Macaca
09-24 04:30 PM
How To Write To Congress (http://consumerist.com/consumer/your-government/how-to-write-to-congress-302775.php) BY CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER | Consumerist, SEP 23 2007
Writing to Congress is the single best way to express your view on public policy. The average consumer has a surprising ability to influence legislation by crafting a well written missive and avoiding several common mistakes.
Why Personal Letters Beat Form Letters
Don't get suckered in by the quick and easy "Write to Congress!" form letters littering the internet. Form letters are not an expression of values; they are a show of organizational strength. If the NRA convinces five million people to send letters opposing gun control, it shows that the NRA can muster five million people to action, not that five million people necessarily care about gun laws. Congressional offices know this and generally disregard form letters.
So what happens when you send a letter?
Every office has its own procedures for tabulating constituent correspondence, but most will produce a report at the end of week breaking down how many letters were received by issue area, separating out form letters from letters sent by individual constituents.
Members treat each type of letter differently, but most look for individual letters as a barometer of their district's concerns. These are the letters that have the most influence, the ones we will show you how to write.
What Should Your Letter Say?
We adhere to the three paragraph rule: introduce yourself, introduce your issue, request action. Congressional offices have staffers whose days are spent solely on the mail, so make their lives easier by keeping letter succinct and to the point.
Introduce Yourself: There is a two-prong test for determining your worth: 1) Are you a constituent? 2) Are you an important constituent? Feel free to puff up your chest. Are you a lifelong member of the district? Are you associated with community groups? Say so! Convince the reader that yours is a voice of experience and wisdom.
Be specific: Don't just ask a Member to oppose mandatory binding arbitration agreements. Ask them to rush to the floor to support S.1782, The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007.
Marshall Facts: Your argument - and you are making an argument - must be supported by facts. Feel free to use facts gleaned from us or other sources, but don't copy and paste paragraphs of pre-written text from form letters. Personal experiences are particularly effective, and often moving. Share them!
Be Exceedingly Polite, Please: Congress attracts haughty personalities. Staffers don't appreciate being spoken down to or insulted. You are trying to rally them to your cause, so be nice!
Clearly State Your Request: Plainly tell your representative that you want them to support or oppose a certain bill. If you want a response, explicitly (but politely!) ask for one.
It should go without saying that your letter should follow all formal style guidelines, such as a return name and address, and should be free of spelling and grammatical errors.
Send Your Letter To The Right Place
Only write to your representatives. You have three: one Representative in the House, and two Senators. Do not send more than three letters. Some citizens try to get their voice heard by writing to all 435 members of the House. Congressional courtesy compels the 434 Members who do not represent the zealot to forward his letter to the one lucky Member who does. This angers the Member's staff greatly at the expense of any point you are trying to make.
The addresses for your Representatives and Senators are available online, but don't waste your time with an email. Letters carry significantly more weight. Send your letter to the Capitol, where the legislative staff is based, though it will take a while to arrive since all incoming Congressional mail is irradiated thanks to those still-unidentified Anthrax mailers.
For an even greater impact, send your letter care of the staffer covering the issue. These staffers - called Legislative Assistants - are the Member's eyes and ears on their assigned issue areas. Finding the staffer destined to read your letter is easy: call the Capitol switchboard (open 24 hours a day!) at (202) 224-3121, ask for your Member's office, and ask the person who answers for the name of the staffer handling the issue area or bill number. Once you get that name, address your letter like this:
Member Of Congress
c/o Staffer
Office Building/Number
Washington, DC 20515
What Should You Expect In Return?
Depends. There are 535 Congressional offices and each handles constituent correspondence differently. The vast majority respond to letters with either a form letter pre-written by a Legislative Assistant, or with a more personal response written by a Legislative Correspondent. Controversial issues that attract many letters normally receive a form letter response, while smaller issues or specific questions often receive the attention of a personalized response.
Conclusion
Members of Congress work for you. Without your votes, they won't stay in office. They go to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with you, their boss. Very few people take the time to write to a Member of Congress, so the few that do carry a disproportionate influence.
Fifteen minutes is well worth the time to influence a $2 trillion enterprise.
Writing to Congress is the single best way to express your view on public policy. The average consumer has a surprising ability to influence legislation by crafting a well written missive and avoiding several common mistakes.
Why Personal Letters Beat Form Letters
Don't get suckered in by the quick and easy "Write to Congress!" form letters littering the internet. Form letters are not an expression of values; they are a show of organizational strength. If the NRA convinces five million people to send letters opposing gun control, it shows that the NRA can muster five million people to action, not that five million people necessarily care about gun laws. Congressional offices know this and generally disregard form letters.
So what happens when you send a letter?
Every office has its own procedures for tabulating constituent correspondence, but most will produce a report at the end of week breaking down how many letters were received by issue area, separating out form letters from letters sent by individual constituents.
Members treat each type of letter differently, but most look for individual letters as a barometer of their district's concerns. These are the letters that have the most influence, the ones we will show you how to write.
What Should Your Letter Say?
We adhere to the three paragraph rule: introduce yourself, introduce your issue, request action. Congressional offices have staffers whose days are spent solely on the mail, so make their lives easier by keeping letter succinct and to the point.
Introduce Yourself: There is a two-prong test for determining your worth: 1) Are you a constituent? 2) Are you an important constituent? Feel free to puff up your chest. Are you a lifelong member of the district? Are you associated with community groups? Say so! Convince the reader that yours is a voice of experience and wisdom.
Be specific: Don't just ask a Member to oppose mandatory binding arbitration agreements. Ask them to rush to the floor to support S.1782, The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007.
Marshall Facts: Your argument - and you are making an argument - must be supported by facts. Feel free to use facts gleaned from us or other sources, but don't copy and paste paragraphs of pre-written text from form letters. Personal experiences are particularly effective, and often moving. Share them!
Be Exceedingly Polite, Please: Congress attracts haughty personalities. Staffers don't appreciate being spoken down to or insulted. You are trying to rally them to your cause, so be nice!
Clearly State Your Request: Plainly tell your representative that you want them to support or oppose a certain bill. If you want a response, explicitly (but politely!) ask for one.
It should go without saying that your letter should follow all formal style guidelines, such as a return name and address, and should be free of spelling and grammatical errors.
Send Your Letter To The Right Place
Only write to your representatives. You have three: one Representative in the House, and two Senators. Do not send more than three letters. Some citizens try to get their voice heard by writing to all 435 members of the House. Congressional courtesy compels the 434 Members who do not represent the zealot to forward his letter to the one lucky Member who does. This angers the Member's staff greatly at the expense of any point you are trying to make.
The addresses for your Representatives and Senators are available online, but don't waste your time with an email. Letters carry significantly more weight. Send your letter to the Capitol, where the legislative staff is based, though it will take a while to arrive since all incoming Congressional mail is irradiated thanks to those still-unidentified Anthrax mailers.
For an even greater impact, send your letter care of the staffer covering the issue. These staffers - called Legislative Assistants - are the Member's eyes and ears on their assigned issue areas. Finding the staffer destined to read your letter is easy: call the Capitol switchboard (open 24 hours a day!) at (202) 224-3121, ask for your Member's office, and ask the person who answers for the name of the staffer handling the issue area or bill number. Once you get that name, address your letter like this:
Member Of Congress
c/o Staffer
Office Building/Number
Washington, DC 20515
What Should You Expect In Return?
Depends. There are 535 Congressional offices and each handles constituent correspondence differently. The vast majority respond to letters with either a form letter pre-written by a Legislative Assistant, or with a more personal response written by a Legislative Correspondent. Controversial issues that attract many letters normally receive a form letter response, while smaller issues or specific questions often receive the attention of a personalized response.
Conclusion
Members of Congress work for you. Without your votes, they won't stay in office. They go to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with you, their boss. Very few people take the time to write to a Member of Congress, so the few that do carry a disproportionate influence.
Fifteen minutes is well worth the time to influence a $2 trillion enterprise.
2010 universal tattoo supply
chintu25
08-06 11:12 AM
"It looks like the Senate and the president have finally agreed on an immigration bill. ... This one looks like it could become law and, of course, nobody likes it. The conservatives say the bill gives amnesty to the illegals. The liberals say it doesn't go far enough to protect the hardworking immigrants here in America. And the L.A.P.D. doesn't know who to beat up." --Bill Maher
"The liberals are saying that this guest worker program ... is really just a way to depress wages and create a permanent underclass of exploited labor. To which the president said, 'And the problem is?'" --Bill Maher
"President said in his speech that immigrants have to learn English. The immigrants said, 'Hey, you first.'" --Jay Leno
"President is down in Mexico right now. Again, I don't think President gets it. As soon as he stepped off Air Force Once, he looked around and said, 'Wow, you got a big problem with Mexican immigrants down here, too.'" --Jay Leno
:D
"The liberals are saying that this guest worker program ... is really just a way to depress wages and create a permanent underclass of exploited labor. To which the president said, 'And the problem is?'" --Bill Maher
"President said in his speech that immigrants have to learn English. The immigrants said, 'Hey, you first.'" --Jay Leno
"President is down in Mexico right now. Again, I don't think President gets it. As soon as he stepped off Air Force Once, he looked around and said, 'Wow, you got a big problem with Mexican immigrants down here, too.'" --Jay Leno
:D
more...
krishna.ahd
02-13 09:43 AM
Please use this thread for education on the effect of lobbying on legislation. Thanks.
First of all, Why We need Lobbying
Check this out
http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/10ReasonstoLobby.pdf
Steps involved in Lobbying
http://www.policylink.org/AdvocatingForChange/Lobbying/Legislators.html
First of all, Why We need Lobbying
Check this out
http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/10ReasonstoLobby.pdf
Steps involved in Lobbying
http://www.policylink.org/AdvocatingForChange/Lobbying/Legislators.html
hair universal tattoo magazine
mirage
02-12 08:57 PM
On the ground does it solve any purpose ? India remains as prone for more attacks as it was 2 months or 2 years ago...
Finally Pak agreed Mumbai terror attacks are partly planned on its soil. I hope they come back after few months and say ISI partly involved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7886469.stm
Finally Pak agreed Mumbai terror attacks are partly planned on its soil. I hope they come back after few months and say ISI partly involved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7886469.stm
more...
waitnwatch
08-05 05:22 PM
Here's the logic behind this debate as I see it (not that there is much logic in the way the immigration laws/rules are framed)
A person with a Master's or a PhD has spent 2-3 or 5-6 years respectively to get their degrees but do not get a priority date reflecting that time spent on acquiring the qualifications.
On the other hand a person with a bachelors who gets 5 years experience can port their priority date while moving from EB3 to EB2 thereby getting credit for time spent.
Porting is law while the Bachelor+5 is due to some memo. This memo does not take into consideration the above inconsistency and therefore this debate.
I hope this sounds logical to atleast some of you folks.
A person with a Master's or a PhD has spent 2-3 or 5-6 years respectively to get their degrees but do not get a priority date reflecting that time spent on acquiring the qualifications.
On the other hand a person with a bachelors who gets 5 years experience can port their priority date while moving from EB3 to EB2 thereby getting credit for time spent.
Porting is law while the Bachelor+5 is due to some memo. This memo does not take into consideration the above inconsistency and therefore this debate.
I hope this sounds logical to atleast some of you folks.
hot Design added Tattoo My design his drawing Universal Tattoo by Darin Image
vivid_bharti
06-23 03:47 PM
I'm surprised nobody is even considering the other aspect i.e. the pleasure to live in your own house. We people are living in US in a small sized appt. while we bought houses in India, which is on rent. You will never know the pleasure of living in your own space...
more...
house Celebrity Tattoos
nogc_noproblem
08-05 02:15 PM
A married couple in their early 60s were out celebrating their 35th wedding anniversary ...
... in a quiet, romantic little restaurant. Suddenly, a tiny yet beautiful fairy appeared on their table and said, "For being such an exemplary married couple and for being faithful to each other for all this time, I will grant you each a wish."
"Ooh, I want to travel around the world with my darling husband" said the wife.
The fairy moved her magic stick and... abracadabra!.... two tickets for the new Queen Mary2 luxury liner appeared in her hands.
Now it was the husband's turn.
He thought for a moment and said: "Well this is all very romantic, but an opportunity like this only occurs once in a lifetime, so I'm sorry my love, but my wish is to have a wife 30 years younger than me".
The wife and the fairy were deeply disappointed, but a wish is a wish...
So the fairy made a circle with her magic stick and .... abracadabra! ....the husband became 92 years old.
The moral of this story: Men might be ungrateful idiots... But fairies are....female!
... in a quiet, romantic little restaurant. Suddenly, a tiny yet beautiful fairy appeared on their table and said, "For being such an exemplary married couple and for being faithful to each other for all this time, I will grant you each a wish."
"Ooh, I want to travel around the world with my darling husband" said the wife.
The fairy moved her magic stick and... abracadabra!.... two tickets for the new Queen Mary2 luxury liner appeared in her hands.
Now it was the husband's turn.
He thought for a moment and said: "Well this is all very romantic, but an opportunity like this only occurs once in a lifetime, so I'm sorry my love, but my wish is to have a wife 30 years younger than me".
The wife and the fairy were deeply disappointed, but a wish is a wish...
So the fairy made a circle with her magic stick and .... abracadabra! ....the husband became 92 years old.
The moral of this story: Men might be ungrateful idiots... But fairies are....female!
tattoo drawing Universal Tattoo
bkarnik
08-06 10:38 AM
This subtlety does not matter. From USCIS point of view, if you entered on Lion Visa you are a Lion, if you came in on Monkey visa you are a monkey. These visas are not based on your genetic makeup, but on the fact that under what category your zoo (employer) filed your visa. Otherwise how come monkeys interfiled and became Lion?? :D:D
I worry about the poor Lion on a Monkey visa...in his anxiety to get a green card and finally be able to roar like a lion again he may also start to suffer from the COLTS disease...poor Lion on a Monkey visa suffering from COLTS!!:D:D:D:D
I worry about the poor Lion on a Monkey visa...in his anxiety to get a green card and finally be able to roar like a lion again he may also start to suffer from the COLTS disease...poor Lion on a Monkey visa suffering from COLTS!!:D:D:D:D
more...
pictures Universal Tattoo
SunnySurya
08-05 03:25 PM
....
dresses universal tattoo.
Macaca
12-20 08:01 AM
Congress's Mixed Results (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902030.html) Democratic promises meet legislative reality, Dec 20, 2007
FOR CONGRESSIONAL Democrats, the first session of the 110th Congress offered a sobering lesson in the practical limits of majority control. Democrats delivered part of what they had promised to the voters who returned them to power last November and recorded some significant achievements. But more often, Democrats found their legislative plans stymied -- first by Senate Republicans' willingness to filibuster any proposal with which they disagreed, then by the president's newfound zeal to exercise his veto power. The scorecard, in the end, is disappointingly mixed. Still, Democrats are more to blame for overpromising than for failing to deliver; their triumphant promises of January were never realistic. Given the slenderest of Senate majorities and the willingness of the minority to wield the filibuster with unprecedented frequency, Democrats' maneuvering room was dramatically limited.
On the plus side of the legislative ledger, President Bush signed an energy bill yesterday that will raise fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks for the first time in 32 years, to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That is a significant achievement, albeit one that could have been even greater had Republicans not blocked efforts to include new requirements for boosting use of renewable sources of energy and to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies.
Likewise, Democrats were able to secure the first increase in the minimum wage in nine years and the largest expansion of college aid since the GI bill, cutting interest rates on subsidized student loans and increasing the maximum Pell grant. They passed an important lobbying and ethics reform bill that will shine light on the bundles of campaign cash delivered by registered lobbyists and clamped down on lawmakers' ability to accept meals, travel and entertainment from lobbyists and those who employ them.
The keenest Democratic disappointment -- failing to force the president to rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- is no disappointment to us. Although unhappiness with the war in Iraq helped propel Democrats to victory, in the end President Bush was able to secure continuing funding for the war with no strings attached. Of far more concern: Democrats could not overcome presidential vetoes of bills providing for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research or expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The children's health issue deserves another try next year; the extension that Congress adopted jeopardizes existing coverage for some children and makes it difficult for states to move forward with planned expansions of coverage.
Democrats spent much of the session congratulating themselves, appropriately so, for reinstating pay-as-you-go rules requiring tax cuts or increases in mandatory spending to be paid for with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts.
In the end, however, Democrats capitulated to a Republican refusal to pay for the $50 billion, one-year patch applied to the alternative minimum tax. The budget process was nearly as unattractive as ever, with a host of overdue spending bills wrapped into a giant package passed in the final hours of the session.
Of most concern are the serious issues that remain unaddressed -- and that aren't likely to be taken up next year, either. An overhaul of the nation's failed immigration policy fell victim to ugly politics, despite the support of the president. Entitlement reform -- in particular a response to the looming Social Security shortfall -- never got off the ground, the victim of distrust and intransigence on both sides. Prospects next year for reauthorizing the president's signature education program, No Child Left Behind, look dim.
The year before a presidential election is rarely a fertile moment for lawmaking; the poisonous level of partisanship in both houses makes that even more unlikely. Republicans seem to have concluded that their electoral hopes lie in blocking Democrats from ringing up any achievements. For their part, House Democrats have conveniently forgotten their pledges to treat the minority with more fairness than they were accorded when Republicans had control.
Yet the new year will dawn with issues of enormous importance on the congressional agenda. In addition to those mentioned above, we would note the worthwhile proposal by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.) to adopt a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. Lawmakers and the president can continue to bicker and elbow for advantage until the next election rolls around -- or they can gamble that they have more to gain with a disgusted electorate by cooperating and getting something done.
FOR CONGRESSIONAL Democrats, the first session of the 110th Congress offered a sobering lesson in the practical limits of majority control. Democrats delivered part of what they had promised to the voters who returned them to power last November and recorded some significant achievements. But more often, Democrats found their legislative plans stymied -- first by Senate Republicans' willingness to filibuster any proposal with which they disagreed, then by the president's newfound zeal to exercise his veto power. The scorecard, in the end, is disappointingly mixed. Still, Democrats are more to blame for overpromising than for failing to deliver; their triumphant promises of January were never realistic. Given the slenderest of Senate majorities and the willingness of the minority to wield the filibuster with unprecedented frequency, Democrats' maneuvering room was dramatically limited.
On the plus side of the legislative ledger, President Bush signed an energy bill yesterday that will raise fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks for the first time in 32 years, to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That is a significant achievement, albeit one that could have been even greater had Republicans not blocked efforts to include new requirements for boosting use of renewable sources of energy and to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies.
Likewise, Democrats were able to secure the first increase in the minimum wage in nine years and the largest expansion of college aid since the GI bill, cutting interest rates on subsidized student loans and increasing the maximum Pell grant. They passed an important lobbying and ethics reform bill that will shine light on the bundles of campaign cash delivered by registered lobbyists and clamped down on lawmakers' ability to accept meals, travel and entertainment from lobbyists and those who employ them.
The keenest Democratic disappointment -- failing to force the president to rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- is no disappointment to us. Although unhappiness with the war in Iraq helped propel Democrats to victory, in the end President Bush was able to secure continuing funding for the war with no strings attached. Of far more concern: Democrats could not overcome presidential vetoes of bills providing for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research or expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The children's health issue deserves another try next year; the extension that Congress adopted jeopardizes existing coverage for some children and makes it difficult for states to move forward with planned expansions of coverage.
Democrats spent much of the session congratulating themselves, appropriately so, for reinstating pay-as-you-go rules requiring tax cuts or increases in mandatory spending to be paid for with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts.
In the end, however, Democrats capitulated to a Republican refusal to pay for the $50 billion, one-year patch applied to the alternative minimum tax. The budget process was nearly as unattractive as ever, with a host of overdue spending bills wrapped into a giant package passed in the final hours of the session.
Of most concern are the serious issues that remain unaddressed -- and that aren't likely to be taken up next year, either. An overhaul of the nation's failed immigration policy fell victim to ugly politics, despite the support of the president. Entitlement reform -- in particular a response to the looming Social Security shortfall -- never got off the ground, the victim of distrust and intransigence on both sides. Prospects next year for reauthorizing the president's signature education program, No Child Left Behind, look dim.
The year before a presidential election is rarely a fertile moment for lawmaking; the poisonous level of partisanship in both houses makes that even more unlikely. Republicans seem to have concluded that their electoral hopes lie in blocking Democrats from ringing up any achievements. For their part, House Democrats have conveniently forgotten their pledges to treat the minority with more fairness than they were accorded when Republicans had control.
Yet the new year will dawn with issues of enormous importance on the congressional agenda. In addition to those mentioned above, we would note the worthwhile proposal by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.) to adopt a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. Lawmakers and the president can continue to bicker and elbow for advantage until the next election rolls around -- or they can gamble that they have more to gain with a disgusted electorate by cooperating and getting something done.
more...
makeup D50014 Universal Tattoo
ssa
06-23 05:16 PM
in agreement.....there is definately pleasure in living in your own house....
Ask current underwater home owners how much pleasure are they deriving from their owned home. Day to day pleasure of living may come from the size and the quality/amenities of the house you stay in, whether you own it or rent it is immaterial. If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it? Plus "owned" house is a little bit of misnomer here. Unless you have paid it off 100% it's not really your own. Rental property is owned by landlords and your "owned" home is in reality owned by your bank. Miss couple of payments and net results are very similar.
Don't get me wrong. In rational market owning home is the easiest way to build up wealth but I can't stress the "rational" part of it enough. Although in most areas the excesses of housing bubble are washed away by now in some areas (like good school districts in Bay Area) the prices are still not aligned with the fundamentals like rents for similar properties and average annual incomes. Also renting has one huge advantage right now in this era of rapidly rising unemployment. You are mobile. You can easily move wherever you can find your next job.
In long run it is always better (IMHO) to own than to rent. But in the short term - for next 1-2 years - I see no compelling argument to buy home unless you land a steal somehow. Sentimental red herrings like "pride and joy" of ownership is definitely not a way to go about making the biggest financial decision of your life. The fact that realtors use this exact phase so often should give you a clue!
Ask current underwater home owners how much pleasure are they deriving from their owned home. Day to day pleasure of living may come from the size and the quality/amenities of the house you stay in, whether you own it or rent it is immaterial. If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it? Plus "owned" house is a little bit of misnomer here. Unless you have paid it off 100% it's not really your own. Rental property is owned by landlords and your "owned" home is in reality owned by your bank. Miss couple of payments and net results are very similar.
Don't get me wrong. In rational market owning home is the easiest way to build up wealth but I can't stress the "rational" part of it enough. Although in most areas the excesses of housing bubble are washed away by now in some areas (like good school districts in Bay Area) the prices are still not aligned with the fundamentals like rents for similar properties and average annual incomes. Also renting has one huge advantage right now in this era of rapidly rising unemployment. You are mobile. You can easily move wherever you can find your next job.
In long run it is always better (IMHO) to own than to rent. But in the short term - for next 1-2 years - I see no compelling argument to buy home unless you land a steal somehow. Sentimental red herrings like "pride and joy" of ownership is definitely not a way to go about making the biggest financial decision of your life. The fact that realtors use this exact phase so often should give you a clue!
girlfriend Inside Universal Tattoo
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
hairstyles Universal Tattoo Club festival
sri
04-07 09:15 AM
Where is it mentioned that they will not renew the H-1Bs?
Green card is for convenience � H-1B status is for survival!!!!
As you already know that anti-H1B lobby has introduced a bill that is designed to put most H-1B dependent employers out of business and most H-1B employees out of the country. This bill is designed to slow bleed H-1B program and systematically purge H-1B employees from the country.
If we cannot stay in the US on H-1, then there is no possibility of a green card.
Details of the discriminatory and impractical Senate bill
Here is the link to bill summary:
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/Analysis_S1035.pdf
Please see section 2(e) and section 2(f)
Here is the link to bill test:
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/Durbin_Grassley_bill.pdf
The original intent of Senate bill S.1035 seems to be to put in checks and balances on H-1B and L-1 program, with inclusion of some good provisions to empower H-1B/L-1 employees. Immigration Voice supports provisions to empower H-1B/L-1 employees. However, S.1035 is discriminatory against H-1B employees and H-1B dependent employers. The bill is designed to render H-1B program useless and impractical to follow. As an example: Even after going through the process of making sure that no able, qualified and willing person in US is available to do the specific job, �the best and the brightest� H-1B employees will not be allowed to do any Consulting!!!!
Further, US business will not be bale to have more than 50% of their employees on H-1B. Some of these companies to very specialized research, development and consulting work. In effect, Senate bill S.1035 is forcing the companies manufacturing baby soap, tissue paper etc to drop their core competency to become experts in the sectors/areas where consultants provide their expertise to assist companies to successes.
This discriminatory bill will have following effects:
1.) This bill will hurt all sectors of the US economy, directly and indirectly.
2.) In the short term, most H-1B employees (including medical doctors, research scientist, IT engineers and other highly skilled immigrants) providing consulting services will have to leave the country, thereby taking all the institutional knowledge to other countries.
3.) In the long term, the bill is designed to promote outsourcing as most employers will be left with no other option but to look outside to find much needed human capital and talent. So this bill hurts competitiveness and is bad for US innovation and economy.
Timeline and Urgency of this massive issue
This bill is a VERY REAL threat. It is designed to be made part of the compressive immigration reform bill (CIR). We have learnt that CIR is on the US Senate schedule for the last two weeks of May and, in the House schedule for the month of July. So if we do not educate the lawmakers about this very real threat to the core concept of competitiveness and innovation, this discriminatory bill could become law as early as August of this year.
What we have to do
1.) This bill is discriminatory and puts unworkable restrictions on H-1B program. Please join Immigration Voice to oppose this bill in its current form.
2.) Join Immigration Voice's efforts to oppose the bill S.1035 and educate the lawmakers to pass meaningful comprehensive immigration reform containing the provisions to end the massive employment based green card backlog.
3.) If you are employee, employer or a lawyer, please take this threat very seriously and inform your organization, employer, colleagues, friends or anybody whom you feel should know about this discriminatory bill. Please request everybody to visit www.ImmigrationVoice.org (http://www.ImmigrationVoice.org) frequently for the latest action items and updates.
4.) Please contribute to Immigration Voice TODAY and please send out SOS message to you friends, colleagues and employers to contribute and support Immigration Voice. We have very limited resources and desperately need everybody�s support.
Please standby for more information and action items.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is going to be no difference whether you ...
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
Hopefully, this will answer some of the questions.
Green card is for convenience � H-1B status is for survival!!!!
As you already know that anti-H1B lobby has introduced a bill that is designed to put most H-1B dependent employers out of business and most H-1B employees out of the country. This bill is designed to slow bleed H-1B program and systematically purge H-1B employees from the country.
If we cannot stay in the US on H-1, then there is no possibility of a green card.
Details of the discriminatory and impractical Senate bill
Here is the link to bill summary:
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/Analysis_S1035.pdf
Please see section 2(e) and section 2(f)
Here is the link to bill test:
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/Durbin_Grassley_bill.pdf
The original intent of Senate bill S.1035 seems to be to put in checks and balances on H-1B and L-1 program, with inclusion of some good provisions to empower H-1B/L-1 employees. Immigration Voice supports provisions to empower H-1B/L-1 employees. However, S.1035 is discriminatory against H-1B employees and H-1B dependent employers. The bill is designed to render H-1B program useless and impractical to follow. As an example: Even after going through the process of making sure that no able, qualified and willing person in US is available to do the specific job, �the best and the brightest� H-1B employees will not be allowed to do any Consulting!!!!
Further, US business will not be bale to have more than 50% of their employees on H-1B. Some of these companies to very specialized research, development and consulting work. In effect, Senate bill S.1035 is forcing the companies manufacturing baby soap, tissue paper etc to drop their core competency to become experts in the sectors/areas where consultants provide their expertise to assist companies to successes.
This discriminatory bill will have following effects:
1.) This bill will hurt all sectors of the US economy, directly and indirectly.
2.) In the short term, most H-1B employees (including medical doctors, research scientist, IT engineers and other highly skilled immigrants) providing consulting services will have to leave the country, thereby taking all the institutional knowledge to other countries.
3.) In the long term, the bill is designed to promote outsourcing as most employers will be left with no other option but to look outside to find much needed human capital and talent. So this bill hurts competitiveness and is bad for US innovation and economy.
Timeline and Urgency of this massive issue
This bill is a VERY REAL threat. It is designed to be made part of the compressive immigration reform bill (CIR). We have learnt that CIR is on the US Senate schedule for the last two weeks of May and, in the House schedule for the month of July. So if we do not educate the lawmakers about this very real threat to the core concept of competitiveness and innovation, this discriminatory bill could become law as early as August of this year.
What we have to do
1.) This bill is discriminatory and puts unworkable restrictions on H-1B program. Please join Immigration Voice to oppose this bill in its current form.
2.) Join Immigration Voice's efforts to oppose the bill S.1035 and educate the lawmakers to pass meaningful comprehensive immigration reform containing the provisions to end the massive employment based green card backlog.
3.) If you are employee, employer or a lawyer, please take this threat very seriously and inform your organization, employer, colleagues, friends or anybody whom you feel should know about this discriminatory bill. Please request everybody to visit www.ImmigrationVoice.org (http://www.ImmigrationVoice.org) frequently for the latest action items and updates.
4.) Please contribute to Immigration Voice TODAY and please send out SOS message to you friends, colleagues and employers to contribute and support Immigration Voice. We have very limited resources and desperately need everybody�s support.
Please standby for more information and action items.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is going to be no difference whether you ...
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
Hopefully, this will answer some of the questions.
leoindiano
03-23 11:03 AM
looks like your case have been picked up for random check.......Do you have US masters degree?
puddonhead
06-26 05:52 PM
A lot of bickering going on in this thread is because many of us (including yours truely) find it very difficult to understand/calculate
1. Time Value of money (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money)).
2. Cash Flow (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_flow))
3. Risk, not the english term - but the quantifiable aspects of it (Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk))
4. Leverage (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(finance)))
I have worked on many of these concepts for > 2 years at work (I am a techie - but have also worked as a BA and part time quant for some time). I still personally find it very difficult to intuitively understand many of those concepts.
A proper conclusion of whether buying is better or renting is would involve each and every one of these concepts - and a lot of assumptions (what will be rate of inflation, how will the home prices behave etc). Since there would be so many assumptions - I doubt it will be at all possible to arrive at any definitive conclusion. Your best bet would probably be a monte carlo analysis and see which one is more probably the superior one.
So surprise of surprises - there is no "right answer"!!
That said - I personally follow the a modified model of "dynamic programming" that my college taught me in the 2nd year of bachelors. You CAN NOT estimate future variables with ANY accuracy. So optimize your present steps based on some cost function.
Applying that to the present problem - you CAN NOT estimate how the home prices will behave in future or how will the rent be or how will the inflation (or - horror of horrors - deflation) behave. The only thing you can optimize is your cash flow TODAY and the Present Value of any investment you hold. Present value = market value of your equity (even if the price is 40% lower than when you bought). Your "cost function" (maybe we should rename it to "wealth function") that you are trying to optimize is your net worth.
The result of the "dynamic programming" approach if probably not going to be the most optimal - but it will be the best that I know of. :-)
Best of luck guys.
1. Time Value of money (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money)).
2. Cash Flow (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_flow))
3. Risk, not the english term - but the quantifiable aspects of it (Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk))
4. Leverage (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(finance)))
I have worked on many of these concepts for > 2 years at work (I am a techie - but have also worked as a BA and part time quant for some time). I still personally find it very difficult to intuitively understand many of those concepts.
A proper conclusion of whether buying is better or renting is would involve each and every one of these concepts - and a lot of assumptions (what will be rate of inflation, how will the home prices behave etc). Since there would be so many assumptions - I doubt it will be at all possible to arrive at any definitive conclusion. Your best bet would probably be a monte carlo analysis and see which one is more probably the superior one.
So surprise of surprises - there is no "right answer"!!
That said - I personally follow the a modified model of "dynamic programming" that my college taught me in the 2nd year of bachelors. You CAN NOT estimate future variables with ANY accuracy. So optimize your present steps based on some cost function.
Applying that to the present problem - you CAN NOT estimate how the home prices will behave in future or how will the rent be or how will the inflation (or - horror of horrors - deflation) behave. The only thing you can optimize is your cash flow TODAY and the Present Value of any investment you hold. Present value = market value of your equity (even if the price is 40% lower than when you bought). Your "cost function" (maybe we should rename it to "wealth function") that you are trying to optimize is your net worth.
The result of the "dynamic programming" approach if probably not going to be the most optimal - but it will be the best that I know of. :-)
Best of luck guys.
