gapala
06-07 04:46 PM
Very interesting discussion going on in this thread.
Can some of the gurus here point to some websites for fundamentals of home buying as well as investment in general ?
Appreciate your feedback.
http://homebuying.about.com/od/buyingahome/qt/0307Buyinghome.htm
Can some of the gurus here point to some websites for fundamentals of home buying as well as investment in general ?
Appreciate your feedback.
http://homebuying.about.com/od/buyingahome/qt/0307Buyinghome.htm
wallpaper Blkwh Guitar Black White
aachoo
03-24 02:21 PM
I'm sure you meant Larry David ;)
I am not sure which season this was from. If it was before season 7 (?) I bow to your superior knowledge.
-a
I am not sure which season this was from. If it was before season 7 (?) I bow to your superior knowledge.
-a
raj2007
04-07 11:39 PM
Desis who come here are all engineers and well educated. I couldn't believe that some of them are falling for the realtor tricks. I know someone who last year paid 200K more on an advertised price of 1million. He said the realtor told him that there was bidding war and he kept rising it and eventually got the house for 1.2million. What stupidity. Doesn't he know about phantom bids that realtors use to jack up the price.:( This is last year end when housing here started crashing. I asked him how he is going to pay when his arm resets. He says he will refinance. God save him.
They are well educated but not street smart. Realtors are same everywhere and they know, how to misguide.
They are well educated but not street smart. Realtors are same everywhere and they know, how to misguide.
2011 Black Gibson. Black Gibson
waitnwatch
08-05 03:18 PM
If someone is eligible to port to a higher category they will rightfully do so. Your post seems to imply all PD porting is through shady means. Grow up buddy!
You've got me wrong - if folks think they are entitled to EB2 for a particular "FUTURE" job what stops them from getting a "FUTURE" job description to fit EB-1. After all it's all in the "FUTURE"..............
You've got me wrong - if folks think they are entitled to EB2 for a particular "FUTURE" job what stops them from getting a "FUTURE" job description to fit EB-1. After all it's all in the "FUTURE"..............
more...
alterego
09-30 12:38 AM
Right now I see the problem in DC as gridlock. They are paralyzed by partisanship, political bickering and resulting indecision. Part of it is due to the nature of politics and part of it is due to the impact of ever more represented special interests.
I see it as more likely that this gridlock will be broken(for good or bad) if Obama is elected. With McCain, atleast on the immigration issue, I'm guessing we will see a replay of the two failed Bush efforts. When the Democrats took congress, many observers and even amongst us thought, with a pro-immigration president and a democratic congress, this was one of the few things that could get done, we all know how that worked out. I'm not sure how anything will be different with a McCain presidency.
I think at this time, many in this community are weary of the politics of this issue. Tired, frustrated and upset at the lack of common sense on this issue. It almost feels like a roll of the dice might be better than this indefinite period of uncertainty and limbo. One can more effectively deal with a decision rather than what is offered us, which is a mere promise with no date certain. It is truly an unfair situation to put someone in, after in many cases 10 yrs in this land. I am hoping for an Obama victory as I see that as the best chance to break this gridlock and release us in some direction.
I see it as more likely that this gridlock will be broken(for good or bad) if Obama is elected. With McCain, atleast on the immigration issue, I'm guessing we will see a replay of the two failed Bush efforts. When the Democrats took congress, many observers and even amongst us thought, with a pro-immigration president and a democratic congress, this was one of the few things that could get done, we all know how that worked out. I'm not sure how anything will be different with a McCain presidency.
I think at this time, many in this community are weary of the politics of this issue. Tired, frustrated and upset at the lack of common sense on this issue. It almost feels like a roll of the dice might be better than this indefinite period of uncertainty and limbo. One can more effectively deal with a decision rather than what is offered us, which is a mere promise with no date certain. It is truly an unfair situation to put someone in, after in many cases 10 yrs in this land. I am hoping for an Obama victory as I see that as the best chance to break this gridlock and release us in some direction.
Macaca
12-27 07:15 PM
In �Daily Show� Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html) By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER | New York Times
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
more...
dealsnet
01-07 05:16 PM
All communists (left) people cannot digest happenings in the new world. Communism & its extremists are a cancer in the last century, by God's grace is over. Now Islamic terrorists are the new avatar. Their fate will be same as communists. This guy get money to write article and book for them,
Before blaming muslims try to understand the fact and know atleast a little history. When you have time just read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
news article written by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army.
Before blaming muslims try to understand the fact and know atleast a little history. When you have time just read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
news article written by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army.
2010 Guitar Hero 5 lack wallpaper
unitednations
07-08 05:31 PM
united nations,
welcome back. it would be interesting to hear your views on the whole July VB fiasco and it's aftermath. thanks!
I along with everyone was pretty surprised that they moved the dates in the june bulletin; let alone the july bulletin.
The ombudsmen report had nothing new in it; he has been saying the same thing for a few years now.
Go back to June 2005 when the bulletin for July 2005 came out and it made eb3 unavailable. Any time a total category goes unavailable that means that the oversubscribed countries should not have gotten more then 7%. ROW cannot be sacrificied under the current law for the oversubscribed countries.
Back in 2005; row was sacrificied. Next time october bulletin came about; they learned their lesson and followed the law exactly the way it was supposed to be; more cases pending then approvable per quarter then hard country quota of 7%. The statistics that came out for fiscal year ended September 2006 was directly correlated to how the law is written.
This year; everything was moving the same way. the unused from ROW should be spilled over in the fourt quarter for use by oversubscribed countries. This is not my opinion but the actual law says this.
Now; when department of state moved the visa bulletin for june; eb3 row still wasn't current; which means hard country quota of 7% and no spillover from eb1 row or eb2 row until July. This can't be done on a whim; regardless of whether this may cause unused visas; it is the law plain and simple.
Now; what department of state and uscis did to correct the mistake is a great piece of americana and how the system works here. that is; we didn't expect you to make the dates current; we will lose a lot of revenue; so how can we correct the situation; to correct the situation; they need to approve enough cases to take up enough visas to go unavailable. This is what they were proabably instructed and did their best to get there.
If they didn't use up the visas then that is where the lawsuit would be won.
A big part of this lawsuit during discovery or Q&A would be how the whole visa allocation is done. If it is determined as a side issue that the spillover happened way too early and they broke the law by giving more then 7% of the visas to the oversubscribed countries then that is definitely a death blow to the people who are really being overzealous right now in the criticisms of dos/uscis.
If this does come out and i can't see why it wouldn't come out then what is uscis to do? rescind approvals? and re-allocate to rest of the world?
The unused visas is a big problem in AC21; in that it can only happen in fourth quarter and there isn't enough time to approve cases and let them go to waste.
This might be a catalyst to change the spillover and carryover of greencards from one year to the next.
----------------------------------------------------
I am of the opinion that what happened in june 2007 actually helped greatly the oversubscribed countries in probably advancing the dates for next fiscal year as many people got approved who probably shouldn't have.
However; it reamins to be seen whether uscis/dos will go to strictly following the country caps and spillover like they did in October 2005 to September 2006. If this is the case then it could be a very long road indeed for people with 2005-2007 priority dates.
welcome back. it would be interesting to hear your views on the whole July VB fiasco and it's aftermath. thanks!
I along with everyone was pretty surprised that they moved the dates in the june bulletin; let alone the july bulletin.
The ombudsmen report had nothing new in it; he has been saying the same thing for a few years now.
Go back to June 2005 when the bulletin for July 2005 came out and it made eb3 unavailable. Any time a total category goes unavailable that means that the oversubscribed countries should not have gotten more then 7%. ROW cannot be sacrificied under the current law for the oversubscribed countries.
Back in 2005; row was sacrificied. Next time october bulletin came about; they learned their lesson and followed the law exactly the way it was supposed to be; more cases pending then approvable per quarter then hard country quota of 7%. The statistics that came out for fiscal year ended September 2006 was directly correlated to how the law is written.
This year; everything was moving the same way. the unused from ROW should be spilled over in the fourt quarter for use by oversubscribed countries. This is not my opinion but the actual law says this.
Now; when department of state moved the visa bulletin for june; eb3 row still wasn't current; which means hard country quota of 7% and no spillover from eb1 row or eb2 row until July. This can't be done on a whim; regardless of whether this may cause unused visas; it is the law plain and simple.
Now; what department of state and uscis did to correct the mistake is a great piece of americana and how the system works here. that is; we didn't expect you to make the dates current; we will lose a lot of revenue; so how can we correct the situation; to correct the situation; they need to approve enough cases to take up enough visas to go unavailable. This is what they were proabably instructed and did their best to get there.
If they didn't use up the visas then that is where the lawsuit would be won.
A big part of this lawsuit during discovery or Q&A would be how the whole visa allocation is done. If it is determined as a side issue that the spillover happened way too early and they broke the law by giving more then 7% of the visas to the oversubscribed countries then that is definitely a death blow to the people who are really being overzealous right now in the criticisms of dos/uscis.
If this does come out and i can't see why it wouldn't come out then what is uscis to do? rescind approvals? and re-allocate to rest of the world?
The unused visas is a big problem in AC21; in that it can only happen in fourth quarter and there isn't enough time to approve cases and let them go to waste.
This might be a catalyst to change the spillover and carryover of greencards from one year to the next.
----------------------------------------------------
I am of the opinion that what happened in june 2007 actually helped greatly the oversubscribed countries in probably advancing the dates for next fiscal year as many people got approved who probably shouldn't have.
However; it reamins to be seen whether uscis/dos will go to strictly following the country caps and spillover like they did in October 2005 to September 2006. If this is the case then it could be a very long road indeed for people with 2005-2007 priority dates.
more...
Macaca
04-08 07:55 AM
Some paras from Big money creates a new capital city (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/citizen-k-street/chapters/conclusion/index.html?hpid=topnews), By Robert G. Kaiser.
The upward arc of his career also delineates the way money has altered Washington during the last three decades. Money has transformed American politics, the career choices available here and even the landscape of the nation's capital. Raising money has become a key to electoral success, while spending taxpayers' dollars has helped incumbents get reelected.
Cassidy helped change Washington by shaping the culture of congressional earmarks that became so important in the last dozen years. Earmarks directly transfer the government's money to particular institutions and interests. He and his original partner helped invent the idea of lobbying for earmarked appropriations -- an idea that made Cassidy rich and fed a system of interdependence between lobbyists and Congress that thrives today.
In a blog he launched this year on his company's Web site, which he used to respond to installments of this series, Cassidy offered a warning about the future of lobbying: "Our profession is at a critical point where we can either embrace the constructive changes and reforms by Congress or we can seek out loopholes and continue the slippery slide into history along side the ranks of snake oil salesmen."
The first lobbying firms were established in the mid-'70s, just when Cassidy left McGovern's select committee on nutrition to begin his lobbying career. As the reach of the federal government extended into more corners of American life, opportunities for lobbyists proliferated. "The issues have multiplied," as Cassidy put it. Over these three decades the amount of money spent on Washington lobbying increased from tens of millions to billions a year. The number of free-lance lobbyists offering services to paying clients has grown from scores to thousands. Cassidy was one of the first to become a millionaire by lobbying; he now has plenty of company.
The term "lobbyist" does not do full justice to the complex status of today's most successful practitioners, who can play the roles of influence peddlers, campaign contributors and fundraisers, political advisers, restaurateurs, benefactors of local cultural and charitable institutions, country gentlemen and more. They have helped make greater Washington one of the wealthiest regions in America.
During his time in Washington, Cassidy said in one of many interviews he gave for these articles that the United States has experienced "a huge redistribution of income, and you can't blame just the Republicans, because it has happened through Democratic presidencies, and through Democratic and Republican congresses."
So the rich have gotten richer, the weak weaker? "I refuse to argue the obvious. ... It's just true, largely because they have less representation. You look at the movements out there, there is no anti-hunger movement, there is no committee on the Hill looking into poverty." Representation, of course, is Cassidy's line of work. It is as old as the republic, but only in Cassidy's time has lobbying become the biggest Washington industry.
This happened because lobbying works so well. Cassidy and his original partner, Kenneth Schlossberg, demonstrated its efficacy by devising ways to win earmarked appropriations from Congress for their clients, originally colleges, universities and medical centers. As Cassidy's clients began to win appropriations of $10 million, $15 million, $20 million and more in the 1980s, new lobbying firms emerged to compete with Cassidy. An increasing number of institutions and local governments looked for help to win earmarks of their own. The lobbying boom had begun.
Incumbent members of the House and Senate complain that they have to spend a third or more of their working hours raising money for their next elections. To help with this task, lobbyists have become campaign treasurers and fundraisers for members and have been responsible for scores of millions in political contributions.
Cassidy understands the low regard many Americans have for his profession but thinks it is unfair. "Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice of law or the practice of medicine," he observed -- implying that it is no worse, either. He prides himself on his firm's "tradition of ethics and integrity," trumpeted on the firm's Web site. Since 1988, Cassidy's lawyers have given his employees annual ethics seminars.
The upward arc of his career also delineates the way money has altered Washington during the last three decades. Money has transformed American politics, the career choices available here and even the landscape of the nation's capital. Raising money has become a key to electoral success, while spending taxpayers' dollars has helped incumbents get reelected.
Cassidy helped change Washington by shaping the culture of congressional earmarks that became so important in the last dozen years. Earmarks directly transfer the government's money to particular institutions and interests. He and his original partner helped invent the idea of lobbying for earmarked appropriations -- an idea that made Cassidy rich and fed a system of interdependence between lobbyists and Congress that thrives today.
In a blog he launched this year on his company's Web site, which he used to respond to installments of this series, Cassidy offered a warning about the future of lobbying: "Our profession is at a critical point where we can either embrace the constructive changes and reforms by Congress or we can seek out loopholes and continue the slippery slide into history along side the ranks of snake oil salesmen."
The first lobbying firms were established in the mid-'70s, just when Cassidy left McGovern's select committee on nutrition to begin his lobbying career. As the reach of the federal government extended into more corners of American life, opportunities for lobbyists proliferated. "The issues have multiplied," as Cassidy put it. Over these three decades the amount of money spent on Washington lobbying increased from tens of millions to billions a year. The number of free-lance lobbyists offering services to paying clients has grown from scores to thousands. Cassidy was one of the first to become a millionaire by lobbying; he now has plenty of company.
The term "lobbyist" does not do full justice to the complex status of today's most successful practitioners, who can play the roles of influence peddlers, campaign contributors and fundraisers, political advisers, restaurateurs, benefactors of local cultural and charitable institutions, country gentlemen and more. They have helped make greater Washington one of the wealthiest regions in America.
During his time in Washington, Cassidy said in one of many interviews he gave for these articles that the United States has experienced "a huge redistribution of income, and you can't blame just the Republicans, because it has happened through Democratic presidencies, and through Democratic and Republican congresses."
So the rich have gotten richer, the weak weaker? "I refuse to argue the obvious. ... It's just true, largely because they have less representation. You look at the movements out there, there is no anti-hunger movement, there is no committee on the Hill looking into poverty." Representation, of course, is Cassidy's line of work. It is as old as the republic, but only in Cassidy's time has lobbying become the biggest Washington industry.
This happened because lobbying works so well. Cassidy and his original partner, Kenneth Schlossberg, demonstrated its efficacy by devising ways to win earmarked appropriations from Congress for their clients, originally colleges, universities and medical centers. As Cassidy's clients began to win appropriations of $10 million, $15 million, $20 million and more in the 1980s, new lobbying firms emerged to compete with Cassidy. An increasing number of institutions and local governments looked for help to win earmarks of their own. The lobbying boom had begun.
Incumbent members of the House and Senate complain that they have to spend a third or more of their working hours raising money for their next elections. To help with this task, lobbyists have become campaign treasurers and fundraisers for members and have been responsible for scores of millions in political contributions.
Cassidy understands the low regard many Americans have for his profession but thinks it is unfair. "Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice of law or the practice of medicine," he observed -- implying that it is no worse, either. He prides himself on his firm's "tradition of ethics and integrity," trumpeted on the firm's Web site. Since 1988, Cassidy's lawyers have given his employees annual ethics seminars.
hair Guitar Hero 3 Guitar Black
qasleuth
03-31 07:44 PM
May be their receipt dates are close.. Remember, CIS can't sort the application by PD. They can process in FIFO of RD.
Nope...was keeping an eye on that too. Sent PMs to a few and could see no trend in the receipt date/notice date either.
Nope...was keeping an eye on that too. Sent PMs to a few and could see no trend in the receipt date/notice date either.
more...
NKR
08-06 03:48 PM
No one can guarantee that. and that is the whole concept of "preference categories" . So now its ok for A to jump to EB2 and leapfrog everyone with his/her 2002 PD? Does 5 years of work have that much value? He/She would be ahead of 2003 EB2 filers that may have been working on degrees since 1999. That's ok by you? The faster movement of EB2 makes up for the years of education. I say, by all means BS+5 shoudl file EB2, I just don't agree with the porting. That PD was for an entirely different skill set and job. I know its the law. I still disagree. Can do that last I knew :-)
Are you pascal with a different ID by any chance? :), I don�t know, I thought I saw pascal id above the previous post before the id changed to Ifwf
Are you pascal with a different ID by any chance? :), I don�t know, I thought I saw pascal id above the previous post before the id changed to Ifwf
hot lack guitar wallpaper -
pitha
09-26 06:49 PM
You are not a citizen, you are not even a green card holder, you and I are H1, and whatever i said is from an h1 point of view. Dont think like a citizen or green card holder, think like a H1b and you will realize obama will roast us. with mccain it might be 4 more years of bush nothing good for eb but definetely nothing bad. The reason behind this thread is not to discuss socialism or capitalism in the general sense but through the lense of eb folks. Once we agree that obama\durbin CIR would spell dooom for us we can decide either
1. We contribute to IV and put one last fight
2. pack our bags and leave or
3. waste our time arguing about capitalism and socialism in the general sense, argue about health care, jobs, etc etc etc when we dont even have a green card.
This is complete non-sense. See the fact of capitalistic approch. Reckless free market approch brought the country to (wall) street. If no regulation and control by the government, the CEOs/Captialist screw you and me. see Enron. See WAMU. The CEO of WAMU walks away with millions of $ after screwing the bank. Where did you studied socialist goverment do not create high tech job? Captalistic form of government is good only if, the CEOs/capitalists are Gandi/Budda.
1. We contribute to IV and put one last fight
2. pack our bags and leave or
3. waste our time arguing about capitalism and socialism in the general sense, argue about health care, jobs, etc etc etc when we dont even have a green card.
This is complete non-sense. See the fact of capitalistic approch. Reckless free market approch brought the country to (wall) street. If no regulation and control by the government, the CEOs/Captialist screw you and me. see Enron. See WAMU. The CEO of WAMU walks away with millions of $ after screwing the bank. Where did you studied socialist goverment do not create high tech job? Captalistic form of government is good only if, the CEOs/capitalists are Gandi/Budda.
more...
house Black Guitar desktop wallpaper
Macaca
12-30 06:24 PM
3. The status of Tibetans in India proves that India is meddling in China�s internal affairs
If, for China, resolving the Tibet issue has to come at the price of demanding unreasonable concessions from India, it would be an unfair situation to present to India. India�s position on Tibet has evolved over the years. India has demonstrated a fine balance on Tibet as a humanitarian concern (with Tibetans settled in India) and the risks of using Tibet as some sort of a political trump card. The latter largely remains an insinuation against India � at least over the last quarter century, and has failed to be reflected in China�s foreign policy towards India. Today the tail seems to be wagging the dog since China suspects India of covertly using Tibet and the Dalai Lama for furtherance of some political goal.
Such misperception is in contrast to China�s relatively muted antipathy to those countries that issue a visa to or host Rebiya Kadeer in exile (Virginia, USA), or where the Tibetans are better organized (USA, Australia and several parts of Europe). In any case China would be aware that India has refrained from seeking alliances in the Southeast and East Asian region. Likewise, it is counter productive for elements in the Indian strategic community or media to play-up the �Tibet card� (whatever that means) or indulge in political gimmickry that reflects insensitivity towards the core concerns of either side.
Policy Focus: India has to maintain a balance between �justice� and �fairness� on the issue of Tibetans living in India, and the risks of political opportunism that could be associated with insensitivity towards China�s concerns. This principle when applied to India�s own core concerns vis-�-vis China could lead to better diplomacy based on the principle of reciprocity.
4. China engages in doublespeak � political statements of intent differ from actions
The recent row over the arrest of Chinese fishermen in Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands, and the detainment of the captain of the Chinese fishing boat, raised concerns about whether such pin-pricking was part of China�s national strategy. Similar pin-pricking happens on the Line of Actual Control (LOAC) on the India-China border where alleged incursions by PLA soldiers are often amplified in the Indian media. With imperfect information on these matters, one can assume that Beijing would have spelt out a policy direction to go �hard� or �soft� on fishing, for instance, in contested waters (Senkaku/Diaoyutai dispute), but China�s coastal marine and fishing administration may have decided to err on the
side of caution.
The same reasoning may, for all we know, apply when the ilitary on either side of the LOAC patrol the disputed boundary. Beijing may have a policy line on �border vigilance�, which division level PLA officers implement by opting to err on the side of caution by �proactive border patrolling�. While the benefit of doubt could be extended for occasional misunderstandings on any front, it is really up to Beijing to clarify whether pin-pricking as a manifest behaviour results from overzealous implementation on the ground or is a real instrument of policy, which is what is suspected by some Chinawatchers in India. If China feels it has been misunderstood in all these instances, one should extend the benefit of doubt to the leadership in China.
This could apply to the issue of stapled visas to Indians from Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) as well. That the visa issue was �administrative,� as Premier Wen Jiabao has clarified, makes China�s political stand reasonably clear. Then it is for China to reconcile. Accumulating such irritants over time undermines security since most people would only read the direct military and administrative challenge posed to India through such acts. It would be na�ve to assume that such incidents would be consequence free and that in the long run public dividends from the salience of an India-China partnership would remain unaffected.
Policy Focus: India should not draw itself into diplomatic situations that make it appear uncompromising. Hence, more institutional channels could be opened up between ministerial counterparts (water, power, trade and commerce, border, education, foreign affairs i.e. multilateral negotiations, and other areas) and even between political parties in order to propose more pluralistic options on areas of contention or interest for both countries.
5. China has not addressed India�s concerns on Pakistan
While several elements in the China-Pakistan relationship remain antithetical to India�s core concerns, it is futile to forever assess the relationship climate of China and Pakistan as impinging excessively on the health of India-China relations. Such a pursuit does not leave enough room for upgrading the India-China relationship. The classic case is that of the US-Pakistan relationship which for most of the Cold War years and even subsequently did not hinder a drastic upgradation in India-US relations in this decade, when the ground was favourable for the United States to recalibrate its foreign policy on South Asia. Similar room for upgradation of the India-China relationship is essential.
More importantly, what should be expected from a Head of State/Government visit? Was there any resolution on matters relating to currency revaluation, or environment or human rights during Obama�s visit to China in 2009? Did the November 2010 Joint Statement of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama affirm the status of Jammu and Kashmir, or even mention Kashmir in the entire text? When it comes to the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir, India is confident of not involving the United States as a party to the resolution of the Kashmir issue. Obama�s offer to �delegate� regional policing in South Asia to China in 2009 was rebuffed by India, and China has only distanced itself from that issue. The question of seeking clarification from China on its neutrality on Kashmir is one thing. However, since when did seeking China�s affirmations on the status of Jammu and Kashmir become imperative for a Joint Statement?
The China-Pakistan relationship does not thrive on what is casually assumed to be a singular anti-India agenda. China�s relationship with Pakistan as a window to the Islamic world often receives muted attention. Since 2009 foreign policy challenges for China arising from condemnation and criticism from Turkey, Iran and Indonesia, in particular, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) over the handling of the Uighurs in Xinjiang region have become acute. While liberal democratic sympathies from the West for Uighurs exists, the prospect of pan-Islamic support for the Uighur cause (on the lines of threats
issued by militant preachers such as Abu Yahya al-Libi) is not something China would want to see in its troubled West. From a utilitarian perspective, Pakistan (with a majority Sunni population) serves perfectly fine as a window to the Islamic world, which China could use to placate concerns or grievances against the Chinese state being anti-Muslim in its handling of Xinjiang (most Uighurs practice a moderate form of Sunni Islam).
Policy focus: China and India interaction, particularly in the academic arena, are fewer than the number of Indians and Chinese in conference-circulation in the United States and Europe. This observation is more intuitive, than empirical, but doesn�t seem inaccurate. Greater discussion and engagement to develop a wider and pluralistic understanding of contentious issues would go a long way in understanding each others� concerns. A �semester abroad� programme for researchers or faculty in academic and research institutions from both sides could go a long way in building civic networks.
Conclusion
Both India and China have new avenues to pick up the threads, as it were. Even on the issue of India�s claim for a UNSC permanent seat, the Joint Communiqu� this time reads: �China attaches great importance to India�s status in international affairs as a large developing country, understands and supports India�s aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations, including in the Security Council� (emphasis added).
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Premier Wen Jiabao have affirmed the idea of
�there being enough space to accommodate the growth of China and India, and for both to cooperate.� This space needs to be nurtured further and the coming year, the Year of China-India Exchange, should be a starting point to engage with China in the shaping of institutional norms for mutual growth and development.
If, for China, resolving the Tibet issue has to come at the price of demanding unreasonable concessions from India, it would be an unfair situation to present to India. India�s position on Tibet has evolved over the years. India has demonstrated a fine balance on Tibet as a humanitarian concern (with Tibetans settled in India) and the risks of using Tibet as some sort of a political trump card. The latter largely remains an insinuation against India � at least over the last quarter century, and has failed to be reflected in China�s foreign policy towards India. Today the tail seems to be wagging the dog since China suspects India of covertly using Tibet and the Dalai Lama for furtherance of some political goal.
Such misperception is in contrast to China�s relatively muted antipathy to those countries that issue a visa to or host Rebiya Kadeer in exile (Virginia, USA), or where the Tibetans are better organized (USA, Australia and several parts of Europe). In any case China would be aware that India has refrained from seeking alliances in the Southeast and East Asian region. Likewise, it is counter productive for elements in the Indian strategic community or media to play-up the �Tibet card� (whatever that means) or indulge in political gimmickry that reflects insensitivity towards the core concerns of either side.
Policy Focus: India has to maintain a balance between �justice� and �fairness� on the issue of Tibetans living in India, and the risks of political opportunism that could be associated with insensitivity towards China�s concerns. This principle when applied to India�s own core concerns vis-�-vis China could lead to better diplomacy based on the principle of reciprocity.
4. China engages in doublespeak � political statements of intent differ from actions
The recent row over the arrest of Chinese fishermen in Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands, and the detainment of the captain of the Chinese fishing boat, raised concerns about whether such pin-pricking was part of China�s national strategy. Similar pin-pricking happens on the Line of Actual Control (LOAC) on the India-China border where alleged incursions by PLA soldiers are often amplified in the Indian media. With imperfect information on these matters, one can assume that Beijing would have spelt out a policy direction to go �hard� or �soft� on fishing, for instance, in contested waters (Senkaku/Diaoyutai dispute), but China�s coastal marine and fishing administration may have decided to err on the
side of caution.
The same reasoning may, for all we know, apply when the ilitary on either side of the LOAC patrol the disputed boundary. Beijing may have a policy line on �border vigilance�, which division level PLA officers implement by opting to err on the side of caution by �proactive border patrolling�. While the benefit of doubt could be extended for occasional misunderstandings on any front, it is really up to Beijing to clarify whether pin-pricking as a manifest behaviour results from overzealous implementation on the ground or is a real instrument of policy, which is what is suspected by some Chinawatchers in India. If China feels it has been misunderstood in all these instances, one should extend the benefit of doubt to the leadership in China.
This could apply to the issue of stapled visas to Indians from Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) as well. That the visa issue was �administrative,� as Premier Wen Jiabao has clarified, makes China�s political stand reasonably clear. Then it is for China to reconcile. Accumulating such irritants over time undermines security since most people would only read the direct military and administrative challenge posed to India through such acts. It would be na�ve to assume that such incidents would be consequence free and that in the long run public dividends from the salience of an India-China partnership would remain unaffected.
Policy Focus: India should not draw itself into diplomatic situations that make it appear uncompromising. Hence, more institutional channels could be opened up between ministerial counterparts (water, power, trade and commerce, border, education, foreign affairs i.e. multilateral negotiations, and other areas) and even between political parties in order to propose more pluralistic options on areas of contention or interest for both countries.
5. China has not addressed India�s concerns on Pakistan
While several elements in the China-Pakistan relationship remain antithetical to India�s core concerns, it is futile to forever assess the relationship climate of China and Pakistan as impinging excessively on the health of India-China relations. Such a pursuit does not leave enough room for upgrading the India-China relationship. The classic case is that of the US-Pakistan relationship which for most of the Cold War years and even subsequently did not hinder a drastic upgradation in India-US relations in this decade, when the ground was favourable for the United States to recalibrate its foreign policy on South Asia. Similar room for upgradation of the India-China relationship is essential.
More importantly, what should be expected from a Head of State/Government visit? Was there any resolution on matters relating to currency revaluation, or environment or human rights during Obama�s visit to China in 2009? Did the November 2010 Joint Statement of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama affirm the status of Jammu and Kashmir, or even mention Kashmir in the entire text? When it comes to the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir, India is confident of not involving the United States as a party to the resolution of the Kashmir issue. Obama�s offer to �delegate� regional policing in South Asia to China in 2009 was rebuffed by India, and China has only distanced itself from that issue. The question of seeking clarification from China on its neutrality on Kashmir is one thing. However, since when did seeking China�s affirmations on the status of Jammu and Kashmir become imperative for a Joint Statement?
The China-Pakistan relationship does not thrive on what is casually assumed to be a singular anti-India agenda. China�s relationship with Pakistan as a window to the Islamic world often receives muted attention. Since 2009 foreign policy challenges for China arising from condemnation and criticism from Turkey, Iran and Indonesia, in particular, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) over the handling of the Uighurs in Xinjiang region have become acute. While liberal democratic sympathies from the West for Uighurs exists, the prospect of pan-Islamic support for the Uighur cause (on the lines of threats
issued by militant preachers such as Abu Yahya al-Libi) is not something China would want to see in its troubled West. From a utilitarian perspective, Pakistan (with a majority Sunni population) serves perfectly fine as a window to the Islamic world, which China could use to placate concerns or grievances against the Chinese state being anti-Muslim in its handling of Xinjiang (most Uighurs practice a moderate form of Sunni Islam).
Policy focus: China and India interaction, particularly in the academic arena, are fewer than the number of Indians and Chinese in conference-circulation in the United States and Europe. This observation is more intuitive, than empirical, but doesn�t seem inaccurate. Greater discussion and engagement to develop a wider and pluralistic understanding of contentious issues would go a long way in understanding each others� concerns. A �semester abroad� programme for researchers or faculty in academic and research institutions from both sides could go a long way in building civic networks.
Conclusion
Both India and China have new avenues to pick up the threads, as it were. Even on the issue of India�s claim for a UNSC permanent seat, the Joint Communiqu� this time reads: �China attaches great importance to India�s status in international affairs as a large developing country, understands and supports India�s aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations, including in the Security Council� (emphasis added).
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Premier Wen Jiabao have affirmed the idea of
�there being enough space to accommodate the growth of China and India, and for both to cooperate.� This space needs to be nurtured further and the coming year, the Year of China-India Exchange, should be a starting point to engage with China in the shaping of institutional norms for mutual growth and development.
tattoo Related Guitar Wallpaper
Macaca
01-30 06:48 PM
The article Round 2: H-1B Battle: American engineers vs. President Bush (http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/4480)! has the following paras.
Lou Dobbs exposed a complete lack of enforcement of H-1B caps by the federal government for the last 2 years. According to the USCIS report, over 75,000 additional H-1B visas were issued above the cap during 2004 and 2005. He openly challenged Congressmen, Senators and the President to enforce our laws. He posed the questions:
1) Why was the report released on November 20th, 2006, immediately after the last election?
2) Why was his report not made available to the public?
3) Why aren�t guest worker Visa caps being enforced?
4) Why does neither Congress nor the executive branch fulfill their constitutional duties?
These good questions lead to the bigger question of who is responsible for enforcing these laws?
Lou Dobbs exposed a complete lack of enforcement of H-1B caps by the federal government for the last 2 years. According to the USCIS report, over 75,000 additional H-1B visas were issued above the cap during 2004 and 2005. He openly challenged Congressmen, Senators and the President to enforce our laws. He posed the questions:
1) Why was the report released on November 20th, 2006, immediately after the last election?
2) Why was his report not made available to the public?
3) Why aren�t guest worker Visa caps being enforced?
4) Why does neither Congress nor the executive branch fulfill their constitutional duties?
These good questions lead to the bigger question of who is responsible for enforcing these laws?
more...
pictures Black Guitar desktop wallpaper
desi3933
08-05 10:22 AM
If you find enough people and have solid plan in place, I am willing to pay anywhere between $500 to $1000 towards the lawyer's fees....
Just self-interest and what works for them.
Factions and Groups
eb2 vs eb3
Porting vs Non-Porting
some recent ones
eb2 NSC vs eb2 TSC
eb2 PD 2006 vs eb2 PD 2004 (as many 2006 PD are getting 485 approvals)
No wonder many people, after getting GC, do not visit this forum and support any immigration reforms.
--------------------------
Whatever we treasure for ourselves separates us from others; our possessions are our limitations.
-- Rabindranath Tagore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore) (Indian Poet and Nobel Prize winner for Literature in 1913)
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
** supports not counting dependents for EB Green cards **
Just self-interest and what works for them.
Factions and Groups
eb2 vs eb3
Porting vs Non-Porting
some recent ones
eb2 NSC vs eb2 TSC
eb2 PD 2006 vs eb2 PD 2004 (as many 2006 PD are getting 485 approvals)
No wonder many people, after getting GC, do not visit this forum and support any immigration reforms.
--------------------------
Whatever we treasure for ourselves separates us from others; our possessions are our limitations.
-- Rabindranath Tagore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore) (Indian Poet and Nobel Prize winner for Literature in 1913)
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
** supports not counting dependents for EB Green cards **
dresses Guitar Hero 5 lack wallpaper
mbawa2574
03-23 10:55 PM
it is not just america losing - the person who has bought the house would lose his downpayment / equity too -not to speak of the mighty credit score - am I right ??
depends on yr situation and your priorities and more important the place where you are planning to buy. is it in florida, mich, Ohio, california or nevada (I guess no - else you would not have asked this question). if you think of a house as investment and you dont want to take a loss - then wait. if you need the space desperately and you are o.k with the prospect of yr house depreciating for couple of years - then go ahead and buy. BTW there was another thread where this was discussed in detail
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17986
I agree he will loose his down payment or credit score in case of things going south on GC side but still he will be able to do whatever is best for his long term goals now and he will be better off in terms of equity when real estate market bounces back in 3-4 years.There are lucrative deals in the market and renting does not make any sense. There is always a risk factor and u can cover your risks accordingly. Anywaz What exactly ur going to do with Credit Score after u are kicked out from here ? So why not take risk now and play the game.
depends on yr situation and your priorities and more important the place where you are planning to buy. is it in florida, mich, Ohio, california or nevada (I guess no - else you would not have asked this question). if you think of a house as investment and you dont want to take a loss - then wait. if you need the space desperately and you are o.k with the prospect of yr house depreciating for couple of years - then go ahead and buy. BTW there was another thread where this was discussed in detail
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17986
I agree he will loose his down payment or credit score in case of things going south on GC side but still he will be able to do whatever is best for his long term goals now and he will be better off in terms of equity when real estate market bounces back in 3-4 years.There are lucrative deals in the market and renting does not make any sense. There is always a risk factor and u can cover your risks accordingly. Anywaz What exactly ur going to do with Credit Score after u are kicked out from here ? So why not take risk now and play the game.
more...
makeup Guitar Wallpaper - Black and
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.
girlfriend wallpaper guitar black.
waitnwatch
08-05 03:13 PM
It is not the Law. It is just a guidance provide in one 2000 Memo by a USCIS director.
Wondering whether the post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 was also a memo. If so when was that memo written - before or after the Yates 2000 memo?
Wondering whether the post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 was also a memo. If so when was that memo written - before or after the Yates 2000 memo?
hairstyles Guitar Mafia Skull Black
unitednations
03-26 09:24 PM
Thanks UN. Just a follow up question, how would you advise to cases where the labor was filed at client location and the employee shifted to another state right after the 140 approval. I guess in this case there is no chance of convincing USCIS about AC-21 invokation. How would you act if such query comes up? Or is there a chance to get this query these days at the time of 485 processing.? Thanks in advance. With this, I would have all my doubts clarified regarding the work location. And also, I hope it does to so many others.
Stating the obvious: Your attorney was a knucklehead?
USCIS hasn't gone to zero tolerance on 140/485 so it is doubtful that you will get such a query.
Are you still on H-1b?
If you want to bullet proof yourself then do an eb2 labor now; port the priority date and then inter-file the 485 or file new 485 on eb2 140 which would have been done appropriately. You can get your greencard dependency on the new 140 without losing much in terms of waiting and getting peace of mind.
Stating the obvious: Your attorney was a knucklehead?
USCIS hasn't gone to zero tolerance on 140/485 so it is doubtful that you will get such a query.
Are you still on H-1b?
If you want to bullet proof yourself then do an eb2 labor now; port the priority date and then inter-file the 485 or file new 485 on eb2 140 which would have been done appropriately. You can get your greencard dependency on the new 140 without losing much in terms of waiting and getting peace of mind.
javadeveloper
07-19 07:33 PM
Hello unitednations,
Can you please comment on my case , pls look at post#140 or http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=124370&postcount=140
I appreciate your help.
Can you please comment on my case , pls look at post#140 or http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=124370&postcount=140
I appreciate your help.
unitednations
08-09 02:20 PM
While most of us here have US Citizenship as their long term goal, they overlook that fact and focus on manipulating stuff to get a GC which might have severe consequences while applying for Naturalization.
Let me share with you the story of my friend who just got his US Citizenship in 2007.
He was out of status without salary for around 6 months during the recession time (2001/2002) and didn�t have W2 for that period either. When USCIS questioned his out of status, he just submitted a letter from the employer stating that they owe some $$$ during that period and will be running his back pay at the earliest. This letter nullified his out of status and was sufficient to satisfy the IO to get his I-485 approved.
Infact, the company in question didn�t run his back pay at all after his I-485 approval and went bankrupt.
While applying for Naturalization, one of the items that the beneficiary has to prove is �Good Moral Character�. While scrutinizing his records they found that he didn�t file his tax returns during the year in question and denied his naturalization.
He had to run from pillar to post and finally got hold of a good attorney who was able to prove that the employer who was supposed to pay the back wages went bankrupt and hence he wasn�t paid, because of which he could file his tax returns. He submitted a letter with proof of bankruptcy and succeeded in his appeal resulting in approval. The whole case dragged for around a year.
Hence please pay attention to every minute detail before and after you get your GC, so that you don�t end up in a mess while applying for naturalization.
I second that notion. Although very rare that uscis adjudicators can go that deep in naturalization; it isn't over when you get a greencard, contrary to what many people think.
Let me share with you the story of my friend who just got his US Citizenship in 2007.
He was out of status without salary for around 6 months during the recession time (2001/2002) and didn�t have W2 for that period either. When USCIS questioned his out of status, he just submitted a letter from the employer stating that they owe some $$$ during that period and will be running his back pay at the earliest. This letter nullified his out of status and was sufficient to satisfy the IO to get his I-485 approved.
Infact, the company in question didn�t run his back pay at all after his I-485 approval and went bankrupt.
While applying for Naturalization, one of the items that the beneficiary has to prove is �Good Moral Character�. While scrutinizing his records they found that he didn�t file his tax returns during the year in question and denied his naturalization.
He had to run from pillar to post and finally got hold of a good attorney who was able to prove that the employer who was supposed to pay the back wages went bankrupt and hence he wasn�t paid, because of which he could file his tax returns. He submitted a letter with proof of bankruptcy and succeeded in his appeal resulting in approval. The whole case dragged for around a year.
Hence please pay attention to every minute detail before and after you get your GC, so that you don�t end up in a mess while applying for naturalization.
I second that notion. Although very rare that uscis adjudicators can go that deep in naturalization; it isn't over when you get a greencard, contrary to what many people think.
