Macaca
05-13 05:42 PM
What if you had to buy American? (http://money.msn.com/how-to-budget/what-if-you-had-to-buy-american.aspx) By Katherine Reynolds Lewis | MSN Money
Legions of patriotic Americans look for "made in USA" stickers before buying products, out of a desire to support the country's economy.
But what if we all were restricted to purchasing only those goods that were made in America?
Our homes would be stripped virtually bare of telephones, televisions, toasters and other electronics, and many of our favorite foods and toys would be gone, too. Say goodbye to your coffee or tea, and forget about slicing bananas into your breakfast cereal -- all three would become prohibitively expensive if we relied on only Hawaii to grow tropical crops.
We'd have to trash our beloved Apple products because the iPod, iPad and MacBook aren't made in the U.S. Gasoline would double or triple in price, given that we now import more than 60% of our oil. And you couldn't propose to your true love with a diamond ring: There are no working diamond mines in the U.S.
Moreover, a complete end to imports would actually hurt the U.S. economy, because consumers and domestic companies would lose access to cheap goods. Trade protections, whether through tariffs or quotas, cost the economy roughly $2 for every $1 in additional profit for domestic producers, said Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
"If we restricted trade to just the 50 states, what would happen immediately -- and would increase over time -- would be a huge reduction in our standard of living, because we wouldn't have access to the cheap goods we get from other countries," Perry said. "We also wouldn't have any export markets, so companies like Caterpillar and Microsoft would have a huge reduction in sales and workforce."
So what do we make of heartfelt pleas to save U.S. manufacturing by buying American, or the many websites (see one here) that catalog U.S. sources for an array of products? Or the Buy American Act, which curbs government purchases of products that are made overseas?
Do such efforts actually hurt the country they're trying to help?
The argument for buying American
Marc Kruskol, 53, a publicist based in Palmdale, Calif., goes out of his way to purchase products that are made in the U.S. because of his concern over the decline in manufacturing employment.
"I truly believe that we could go a long way towards fixing the economy if we would just put people to work making things in this country that are made in other places," said Kruskol, who spends hours scouring made-in-America websites or visiting brick-and-mortar stores in search of U.S. products.
He recently spent $10 on a pair of salad tongs made in America, which he tracked down in a restaurant supply store, after rejecting 99-cent foreign-made tongs. And he was happy to spend $650 on a domestically produced barbecue grill rather than a $450 imported one, just to support his countrymen.
But financial experts say that it's best for America if you buy the cheapest product you can find without sacrificing quality. Their explanation rests on the concept of efficient manufacturing. An efficient producer creates the most valuable goods with the least possible expense, selling those items at lower prices than competitors who are less efficient. A country benefits when its manufacturers become more efficient.
When you spend more on an equivalent product simply because it's made in the U.S., you're wasting your money -- and supporting an inefficient manufacturer that, by rights, should become more efficient or go out of business. Moreover, the additional $9.01 or $200 that Kruskol had spent on an inefficient U.S. producer could have been spent on something else, helping the economy further. Or it could have stayed in his savings account and been funneled by his bank into the financial system, which in theory allocates capital to the most efficient producers.
"He gave effectively $9 to an inefficient producer to motivate them to keep producing inefficiently," said Ken Fisher, the founder and CEO of Fisher Investments in Woodside, Calif., and the author of "Debunkery." "I understand the well-intentioned view. Doing that would be terrible for America."
The most efficient producers are best-positioned to create more jobs and return profits to their investors, and to the government in the form of tax revenue. "We make the country better by allocating resources towards the ones that can use them best," Fisher said.
The complex manufacturing question
At the heart of the issue are the interconnected global economy and the changes in the manufacturing sector.
There's no question that U.S. manufacturers employ far fewer people now -- about 11.7 million in April -- than when the sector peaked at 19.6 million workers in 1979. But the decline in jobs is largely due to technological advances that have reduced the number of workers needed to run factories, Perry and Fisher pointed out. The average worker today is responsible for $180,000 of manufacturing output, triple the inflation-adjusted $60,000 of 1972, Perry said.
Despite that increase in productivity, a March report by IHS Global Insight put China's manufacturing output ahead of the U.S. for the first time ever, at $2 trillion in 2010, compared with $1.95 trillion for the U.S. That's up from $1.69 trillion for China and $1.733 trillion for the U.S. in 2009, based on U.S. and Chinese government data.
But Perry argued that exchange-rate fluctuations and differences in data sources caused the IHS Global report to skew the comparison between the U.S. and China. Based on U.N. data for 2009, the most recent available, the United States' manufacturing output was 14% ahead of China's, he said.
Moreover, as manufacturing has declined as a share of the U.S. economy while the service sector has grown, most of the world has followed the same trend. The proportion has held steady in China.
"We've left the Machine Age, and we're in a new Information Age. It makes sense that manufacturing would be less important," Perry said, noting that as other countries have taken over clothing and other low-end manufacturing, the U.S. has become more competitive in producing pharmaceuticals, software, aerospace technology, industrial machinery and medical equipment. "We're still world leaders and at the cutting edge of those higher-skilled, higher-valued-added areas."
Not convinced yet? The other conundrum in trying to buy only U.S.-made products lies in what that really means.
Do you accept products that are assembled in America but contain components from all over the globe? For example, U.S. companies in February imported $58 billion worth of industrial supplies, such as petroleum and plastics, and $40 billion in capital goods, from computers to engines and laboratory equipment.
What about products that are assembled in China yet include parts from U.S. suppliers and were designed by American engineers? Every time you purchase such an item, the money will flow back to those American engineers and suppliers.
Cars.com's American-Made Index illustrates U.S. industries' complex trade relationships. The website ranks vehicles built and purchased in the U.S. based on sales, the origin of the cars' parts and whether assembly was in the U.S. The top two cars -- Toyota Camry and Honda Accord -- are produced by Japanese companies through their U.S. subsidiaries.
"On the surface, it seems like it might be plausible to have these 'made in the USA' campaigns," Perry said. "It all gets real tricky in a global economy with parts."
When buying American helps
That's not to say you should ignore the origins of the goods you buy.
When comparing two products of equivalent price and quality, feel free to choose the U.S.-made one out of domestic pride. It may make sense to buy a U.S.-made product if the quality or safety is superior.
Alex Kaplan, 41, the owner of Celebrity Laser Spa in Los Angeles, recently bought a pair of ottomans online for $120, only to find them cracked and cheaply made. After returning the made-in-China set, he found a craftsman through Etsy who made similar ottomans for $160 but allowed customers to choose the fabrics.
"It's much more satisfying," said Kaplan, whose blog chronicles his attempts to find products made in the U.S. "The most important thing when it comes to buying American is being aware and asking yourself, 'Where is this made?'"
Is College a Rotten Investment?
Why student loans are not like subprime mortgages. (http://www.slate.com/id/2293766/)
By Annie Lowrey | Slate
Legions of patriotic Americans look for "made in USA" stickers before buying products, out of a desire to support the country's economy.
But what if we all were restricted to purchasing only those goods that were made in America?
Our homes would be stripped virtually bare of telephones, televisions, toasters and other electronics, and many of our favorite foods and toys would be gone, too. Say goodbye to your coffee or tea, and forget about slicing bananas into your breakfast cereal -- all three would become prohibitively expensive if we relied on only Hawaii to grow tropical crops.
We'd have to trash our beloved Apple products because the iPod, iPad and MacBook aren't made in the U.S. Gasoline would double or triple in price, given that we now import more than 60% of our oil. And you couldn't propose to your true love with a diamond ring: There are no working diamond mines in the U.S.
Moreover, a complete end to imports would actually hurt the U.S. economy, because consumers and domestic companies would lose access to cheap goods. Trade protections, whether through tariffs or quotas, cost the economy roughly $2 for every $1 in additional profit for domestic producers, said Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
"If we restricted trade to just the 50 states, what would happen immediately -- and would increase over time -- would be a huge reduction in our standard of living, because we wouldn't have access to the cheap goods we get from other countries," Perry said. "We also wouldn't have any export markets, so companies like Caterpillar and Microsoft would have a huge reduction in sales and workforce."
So what do we make of heartfelt pleas to save U.S. manufacturing by buying American, or the many websites (see one here) that catalog U.S. sources for an array of products? Or the Buy American Act, which curbs government purchases of products that are made overseas?
Do such efforts actually hurt the country they're trying to help?
The argument for buying American
Marc Kruskol, 53, a publicist based in Palmdale, Calif., goes out of his way to purchase products that are made in the U.S. because of his concern over the decline in manufacturing employment.
"I truly believe that we could go a long way towards fixing the economy if we would just put people to work making things in this country that are made in other places," said Kruskol, who spends hours scouring made-in-America websites or visiting brick-and-mortar stores in search of U.S. products.
He recently spent $10 on a pair of salad tongs made in America, which he tracked down in a restaurant supply store, after rejecting 99-cent foreign-made tongs. And he was happy to spend $650 on a domestically produced barbecue grill rather than a $450 imported one, just to support his countrymen.
But financial experts say that it's best for America if you buy the cheapest product you can find without sacrificing quality. Their explanation rests on the concept of efficient manufacturing. An efficient producer creates the most valuable goods with the least possible expense, selling those items at lower prices than competitors who are less efficient. A country benefits when its manufacturers become more efficient.
When you spend more on an equivalent product simply because it's made in the U.S., you're wasting your money -- and supporting an inefficient manufacturer that, by rights, should become more efficient or go out of business. Moreover, the additional $9.01 or $200 that Kruskol had spent on an inefficient U.S. producer could have been spent on something else, helping the economy further. Or it could have stayed in his savings account and been funneled by his bank into the financial system, which in theory allocates capital to the most efficient producers.
"He gave effectively $9 to an inefficient producer to motivate them to keep producing inefficiently," said Ken Fisher, the founder and CEO of Fisher Investments in Woodside, Calif., and the author of "Debunkery." "I understand the well-intentioned view. Doing that would be terrible for America."
The most efficient producers are best-positioned to create more jobs and return profits to their investors, and to the government in the form of tax revenue. "We make the country better by allocating resources towards the ones that can use them best," Fisher said.
The complex manufacturing question
At the heart of the issue are the interconnected global economy and the changes in the manufacturing sector.
There's no question that U.S. manufacturers employ far fewer people now -- about 11.7 million in April -- than when the sector peaked at 19.6 million workers in 1979. But the decline in jobs is largely due to technological advances that have reduced the number of workers needed to run factories, Perry and Fisher pointed out. The average worker today is responsible for $180,000 of manufacturing output, triple the inflation-adjusted $60,000 of 1972, Perry said.
Despite that increase in productivity, a March report by IHS Global Insight put China's manufacturing output ahead of the U.S. for the first time ever, at $2 trillion in 2010, compared with $1.95 trillion for the U.S. That's up from $1.69 trillion for China and $1.733 trillion for the U.S. in 2009, based on U.S. and Chinese government data.
But Perry argued that exchange-rate fluctuations and differences in data sources caused the IHS Global report to skew the comparison between the U.S. and China. Based on U.N. data for 2009, the most recent available, the United States' manufacturing output was 14% ahead of China's, he said.
Moreover, as manufacturing has declined as a share of the U.S. economy while the service sector has grown, most of the world has followed the same trend. The proportion has held steady in China.
"We've left the Machine Age, and we're in a new Information Age. It makes sense that manufacturing would be less important," Perry said, noting that as other countries have taken over clothing and other low-end manufacturing, the U.S. has become more competitive in producing pharmaceuticals, software, aerospace technology, industrial machinery and medical equipment. "We're still world leaders and at the cutting edge of those higher-skilled, higher-valued-added areas."
Not convinced yet? The other conundrum in trying to buy only U.S.-made products lies in what that really means.
Do you accept products that are assembled in America but contain components from all over the globe? For example, U.S. companies in February imported $58 billion worth of industrial supplies, such as petroleum and plastics, and $40 billion in capital goods, from computers to engines and laboratory equipment.
What about products that are assembled in China yet include parts from U.S. suppliers and were designed by American engineers? Every time you purchase such an item, the money will flow back to those American engineers and suppliers.
Cars.com's American-Made Index illustrates U.S. industries' complex trade relationships. The website ranks vehicles built and purchased in the U.S. based on sales, the origin of the cars' parts and whether assembly was in the U.S. The top two cars -- Toyota Camry and Honda Accord -- are produced by Japanese companies through their U.S. subsidiaries.
"On the surface, it seems like it might be plausible to have these 'made in the USA' campaigns," Perry said. "It all gets real tricky in a global economy with parts."
When buying American helps
That's not to say you should ignore the origins of the goods you buy.
When comparing two products of equivalent price and quality, feel free to choose the U.S.-made one out of domestic pride. It may make sense to buy a U.S.-made product if the quality or safety is superior.
Alex Kaplan, 41, the owner of Celebrity Laser Spa in Los Angeles, recently bought a pair of ottomans online for $120, only to find them cracked and cheaply made. After returning the made-in-China set, he found a craftsman through Etsy who made similar ottomans for $160 but allowed customers to choose the fabrics.
"It's much more satisfying," said Kaplan, whose blog chronicles his attempts to find products made in the U.S. "The most important thing when it comes to buying American is being aware and asking yourself, 'Where is this made?'"
Is College a Rotten Investment?
Why student loans are not like subprime mortgages. (http://www.slate.com/id/2293766/)
By Annie Lowrey | Slate
wallpaper justin-ieber-invisalign-never
EkAurAaya
08-05 06:00 PM
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
Friend... Your post is obviously selfishly motivated... and shortsighted. I'm sure if you were EB3 you would not make the same logical suggestion that you claim to be logical based on your self centered thinking.
What you're suggesting is make it even more difficult for anyone to change jobs (then it already is)...
Don't get too comfy with your EAD card, god forbid you might just get a RFE your AOS can get rejected, then you'll realize why your PD should be portable :D
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
Friend... Your post is obviously selfishly motivated... and shortsighted. I'm sure if you were EB3 you would not make the same logical suggestion that you claim to be logical based on your self centered thinking.
What you're suggesting is make it even more difficult for anyone to change jobs (then it already is)...
Don't get too comfy with your EAD card, god forbid you might just get a RFE your AOS can get rejected, then you'll realize why your PD should be portable :D
saravanaraj.sathya
08-08 10:39 AM
UnitedNations - You are simply amazing..I admire ur courage and feel more confident now. I think this thread has invaludable information so that people will be careful before giving any wrong information to USCIS and geting into to trouble later on.
Question-
--------------------
Whtz if some does not have pay stubs after filing I-485..Is that a problem atall? Does uscis check only for the records until I-485 is filed. Please let me know. Also can I work as an individual contractor on W-2?
Yes, that is correct.
I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:
w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.
I-134 affidavit of support
All passports
Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)
Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary
last three months paystubs
Company two years of tax returns
Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999
Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).
I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.
From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.
Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).
I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.
Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.
He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.
He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.
He then said case is approved.
Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.
Question-
--------------------
Whtz if some does not have pay stubs after filing I-485..Is that a problem atall? Does uscis check only for the records until I-485 is filed. Please let me know. Also can I work as an individual contractor on W-2?
Yes, that is correct.
I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:
w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.
I-134 affidavit of support
All passports
Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)
Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary
last three months paystubs
Company two years of tax returns
Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999
Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).
I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.
From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.
Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).
I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.
Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.
He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.
He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.
He then said case is approved.
Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.
2011 Justin Bieber Brings #39;Never
rimzhim
02-23 08:52 AM
here is someone who gives the real picture.
http://www.tuftsobserver.org/news/20070223/four_myths_about_immigrat.html
i doubt that this is the real picture. it is one opinion and full of nonsense. the article tries to defend illegal immigration. that kind of an attitude will never help us who are trying to immigrate legally. also just because legal immigration is a long and difficult process does not mean that it is okay to break the laws and become illegal. those who came here illegally could never have come legally on EB visas. so this kind of rubbish no one will buy.
http://www.tuftsobserver.org/news/20070223/four_myths_about_immigrat.html
i doubt that this is the real picture. it is one opinion and full of nonsense. the article tries to defend illegal immigration. that kind of an attitude will never help us who are trying to immigrate legally. also just because legal immigration is a long and difficult process does not mean that it is okay to break the laws and become illegal. those who came here illegally could never have come legally on EB visas. so this kind of rubbish no one will buy.
more...
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?
vactorboy29
10-01 04:18 PM
I do support Obama reason for that he got good plans to rescue this economy .He also understand how it feels when you treated differently .Another thought I have is, his father was came to this country for higher study and he understands What is American dream.
That is how i feel he will do better on our cause than his opponent.
That is how i feel he will do better on our cause than his opponent.
more...
shensh
04-09 01:33 PM
Chill out pal, please don't exaggerate how much people value academic degrees in real business world. Holding a Ms or PhD degree alone doesn't necessarily mean you're an asset to this country, nor to a particular employer. I have Ms degree from US institution and I don't think it matters much to my employer, everything is based on performance.
I agree that H1-B visa should be granted to people who fill a real business need, not those who are unfortunately treated as unlimited supply for body-shoppers making their fortune selling hours of H1-Bs. In this perspective, the idea of restricting companies with 50+% H1-Bs is brilliant. I wouldn't worry about management consulting firms like BCG or McKinsey, I bet they don't have half of their consultants under H1-b. :-)
Quote:
pete
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVERYBODY wants those doing Ms and PhD in certain disciplines to stay. They do no harm AT ALL and actually are an asset.
Consultants need to be curtailed.
I agree that H1-B visa should be granted to people who fill a real business need, not those who are unfortunately treated as unlimited supply for body-shoppers making their fortune selling hours of H1-Bs. In this perspective, the idea of restricting companies with 50+% H1-Bs is brilliant. I wouldn't worry about management consulting firms like BCG or McKinsey, I bet they don't have half of their consultants under H1-b. :-)
Quote:
pete
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVERYBODY wants those doing Ms and PhD in certain disciplines to stay. They do no harm AT ALL and actually are an asset.
Consultants need to be curtailed.
2010 Justin Bieber Never Say Never
xyzgc
01-01 01:30 PM
I agree partly with what Alisa is saying ..war is definitely not the answer ..hopefully as years pass by (my feeling is atleast 50 years) ...more and more pakistanis will realise that the key to better life is to lead a modern life and become a modern country like malaysia(which has its own faults though).
on the other hand ..Alisa ..don't you think Pakistan should atleast handover some of the terrorists who are wanted particularly the MF/SF bastard Dawood ?
basically u cannot have cake and eat it too ..if pak wants good relations/goodwill with India then they should take some action
And in those 50 years, assuming you are an Indian, your family becomes a victim of the terrorist attack, will you still hold on to your ideas of peace?
Its not the question of average Paki realizing what's wrong and what's right. Its about the army dictators that run Pakistan. Will they realize that? Should we wait for them to realize that and keep suffering in the process?
Pakistan will not handover anybody to India. India will hand over Kasam and Afzal (parliament attacker) to Pakistani terrorists - in line with turning the other cheek, after receiving this slap from the terrorists.
on the other hand ..Alisa ..don't you think Pakistan should atleast handover some of the terrorists who are wanted particularly the MF/SF bastard Dawood ?
basically u cannot have cake and eat it too ..if pak wants good relations/goodwill with India then they should take some action
And in those 50 years, assuming you are an Indian, your family becomes a victim of the terrorist attack, will you still hold on to your ideas of peace?
Its not the question of average Paki realizing what's wrong and what's right. Its about the army dictators that run Pakistan. Will they realize that? Should we wait for them to realize that and keep suffering in the process?
Pakistan will not handover anybody to India. India will hand over Kasam and Afzal (parliament attacker) to Pakistani terrorists - in line with turning the other cheek, after receiving this slap from the terrorists.
more...
thuristic
04-18 05:44 PM
Lou Dobbs at CNN is doing a quick vote to justify his oppinions against amnesty. So far, the majority of the vote is "against" rather than "for". I myself am not a big fan of the proposal becauses it deminishes efforts put in by legal immigrats like ourselves but regardless consider it necessary for us to support as it currently is the only bill alive including retrogression relief along with amnesty.
Media generates publicity by twisting a small fraction of reality. Imagine what Lou would say if he gets a unanimous vote against amnesty. I am sure he will make the best of it to promote negativism towards any relief efforts regardless of it being amnesty or retrogression relief. Please go to the URL below and cast your support vote!
Question: Do you believe Congress should first demand that our borders and ports be secured before taking up immigration reform?
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
Media generates publicity by twisting a small fraction of reality. Imagine what Lou would say if he gets a unanimous vote against amnesty. I am sure he will make the best of it to promote negativism towards any relief efforts regardless of it being amnesty or retrogression relief. Please go to the URL below and cast your support vote!
Question: Do you believe Congress should first demand that our borders and ports be secured before taking up immigration reform?
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
hair justin bieber never say
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...
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.
hot Justin Bieber meets his fans
gc_bucs
05-31 05:28 PM
Lou's opinioins are well known. He's ripped every one across the spectrum.
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the crazy man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the crazy man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
more...
house Justin Bieber: Never Say
Macaca
03-06 09:03 PM
Labor Certification for the Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States; Implementation of New System; Final Rule (http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/PERM_Final_Rule_12-27-04_FR.pdf) 20 CFR Parts 655 and 656 | Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, December 27, 2004
U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions (http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2007,0122-crs.pdf), CRS Report for Congress, Updated December 13, 2006
U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions (http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2006,0425-crs.pdf), Updated April 17, 2006
Immigration Policy in the United States (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7051/02-28-Immigration.pdf) CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, February 2006
CRS Reports (http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/crs.shtm)
Immigration through Employment (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=84096138f898d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PERMANENT RESIDENCE (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=141&d=1184798383)
EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL AND OUTSTANDING: What does it take to make it to the top? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/monthly/october_featured_article.pdf) by Sherry L. Neal, Attorney
Damaris Del Valle, Law Clerk
Legal Immigrants: waiting forever (http://www.competeamerica.org/resource/h1b_glance/NFAP_Study.pdf)
TITLE 22 OF CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (22 CFR): Chapter I -- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION)(Amended 2/28/03; 68 FR 9824 ) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=e6f9e66480441fe548dfe78bf2aff 82c)
TITLE 8 OF CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (8 CFR): Chapter I -- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=d28c5cb48217d90d388b3ed180f19 96e)
PART 42�VISAS: DOCUMENTATION OF IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d093e437827c75a38a4aaaa26e9b13b3&rgn=div8&view=text&node=22:1.0.1.5.28.6.1.1&idno=22), Subpart F�Numerical Controls and Priority Dates
Adjudicator's Field Manual - Redacted Public Version (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=724ce55f1a60168e48ce159d28615 0e2) Updated Through June 18, 2007, Posted July, 2007
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (AD03-01) (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=136&d=1184796132)
Transferring Section 245 Adjustment Applications to New or Subsequent Family or Employment-Based Visa Petitions (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=137&d=1184797399)
I-485 Standard Operating Procedure (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=138&d=1184798238)
Interim Guidance for Processing Form I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and Form I-485 and H-1B Petitions Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313) (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=139&d=1184798248)
Revised Interview Waiver Criteria for Form I-485 Application to Register permanent residence or adjust status (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=142&d=1184798393)
U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions (http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2007,0122-crs.pdf), CRS Report for Congress, Updated December 13, 2006
U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions (http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2006,0425-crs.pdf), Updated April 17, 2006
Immigration Policy in the United States (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7051/02-28-Immigration.pdf) CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, February 2006
CRS Reports (http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/crs.shtm)
Immigration through Employment (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=84096138f898d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PERMANENT RESIDENCE (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=141&d=1184798383)
EXTRAORDINARY, EXCEPTIONAL AND OUTSTANDING: What does it take to make it to the top? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/monthly/october_featured_article.pdf) by Sherry L. Neal, Attorney
Damaris Del Valle, Law Clerk
Legal Immigrants: waiting forever (http://www.competeamerica.org/resource/h1b_glance/NFAP_Study.pdf)
TITLE 22 OF CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (22 CFR): Chapter I -- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION)(Amended 2/28/03; 68 FR 9824 ) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=e6f9e66480441fe548dfe78bf2aff 82c)
TITLE 8 OF CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (8 CFR): Chapter I -- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=d28c5cb48217d90d388b3ed180f19 96e)
PART 42�VISAS: DOCUMENTATION OF IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d093e437827c75a38a4aaaa26e9b13b3&rgn=div8&view=text&node=22:1.0.1.5.28.6.1.1&idno=22), Subpart F�Numerical Controls and Priority Dates
Adjudicator's Field Manual - Redacted Public Version (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=724ce55f1a60168e48ce159d28615 0e2) Updated Through June 18, 2007, Posted July, 2007
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (AD03-01) (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=136&d=1184796132)
Transferring Section 245 Adjustment Applications to New or Subsequent Family or Employment-Based Visa Petitions (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=137&d=1184797399)
I-485 Standard Operating Procedure (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=138&d=1184798238)
Interim Guidance for Processing Form I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and Form I-485 and H-1B Petitions Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313) (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=139&d=1184798248)
Revised Interview Waiver Criteria for Form I-485 Application to Register permanent residence or adjust status (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=142&d=1184798393)
tattoo Leona-Lewis-at-Justin-Bieber-
thomachan72
08-06 04:28 PM
THERE IS THIS GOOD OLD BARBER IN SOME CITY IN THE AMERICA....
ONE DAY A FLORIST GOES TO HIM FOR A HAIRCUT. AFTER THE CUT, HE GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AND THE BARBER REPLIES: "I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU.I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE." THE FLORIST IS HAPPY AND LEAVES THE SHOP.
THE NEXT MORNING WHEN THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, THERE IS A THANK YOU CARD AND A DOZEN ROSES WAITING AT HIS DOOR.
A POLICEMAN GOES FOR A HAIRCUT AND HE ALSO GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AFTER THE CUT. BUT THE BARBER REPLIES:"I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU. I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE." THE COP IS HAPPY AND LEAVES THE SHOP.
THE NEXT MORNING THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, THERE IS A THANK YOU CARD AND A DOZEN DONUTS WAITING AT HIS DOOR.
AN INDIAN SOFTWARE ENGINEER GOES FOR A HAIRCUT AND HE ALSO GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AFTER THE CUT. BUT THE BARBER REPLIES: I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU. I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE. THE INDIAN SOFTWARE ENGINEER IS HAPPY AND LEAVES.
..Enjoy
THE NEXT MORNING WHEN THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, GUESS WHAT HE
FINDS
THERE...
CAN YOU GUESS?
DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER YET?
COME ON, THINK LIKE A INDIAN....
A DOZEN INDIANS WAITING FOR A HAIRCUT........!!!!!
well most of us guessed the answer because as soon as we read about the barber we were thinking of asking whether you knew his address!!
ONE DAY A FLORIST GOES TO HIM FOR A HAIRCUT. AFTER THE CUT, HE GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AND THE BARBER REPLIES: "I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU.I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE." THE FLORIST IS HAPPY AND LEAVES THE SHOP.
THE NEXT MORNING WHEN THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, THERE IS A THANK YOU CARD AND A DOZEN ROSES WAITING AT HIS DOOR.
A POLICEMAN GOES FOR A HAIRCUT AND HE ALSO GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AFTER THE CUT. BUT THE BARBER REPLIES:"I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU. I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE." THE COP IS HAPPY AND LEAVES THE SHOP.
THE NEXT MORNING THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, THERE IS A THANK YOU CARD AND A DOZEN DONUTS WAITING AT HIS DOOR.
AN INDIAN SOFTWARE ENGINEER GOES FOR A HAIRCUT AND HE ALSO GOES TO PAY THE BARBER AFTER THE CUT. BUT THE BARBER REPLIES: I AM SORRY. I CANNOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM YOU. I AM DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE. THE INDIAN SOFTWARE ENGINEER IS HAPPY AND LEAVES.
..Enjoy
THE NEXT MORNING WHEN THE BARBER GOES TO OPEN HIS SHOP, GUESS WHAT HE
FINDS
THERE...
CAN YOU GUESS?
DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER YET?
COME ON, THINK LIKE A INDIAN....
A DOZEN INDIANS WAITING FOR A HAIRCUT........!!!!!
well most of us guessed the answer because as soon as we read about the barber we were thinking of asking whether you knew his address!!
more...
pictures “Justin Bieber: Never Say
chanduv23
05-16 06:09 AM
What if they give you all a chance for applying 485 and retaining PD before they ban h1b consulting??? I guess, you all will be happy with Durbin adn Grassley ;) ;) ;)
The h1b system was designed to create brain drain in developing nations and bring them to America, but because of the implementation methodologies the opposite is happening, good people are either moving back or not coming or stuck with an employer which is not good for the economy.
America gains nothing by banning h1b people - I am sure some provision will be there to protect people and get a fair chance towards imigration even if consulting etc.. practices are modified to work in correct methodologies.
The h1b system was designed to create brain drain in developing nations and bring them to America, but because of the implementation methodologies the opposite is happening, good people are either moving back or not coming or stuck with an employer which is not good for the economy.
America gains nothing by banning h1b people - I am sure some provision will be there to protect people and get a fair chance towards imigration even if consulting etc.. practices are modified to work in correct methodologies.
dresses tattoo justin bieber never say
ghost
07-17 10:24 AM
Also I forgot to say Randall, I think you really want to see no greencards to anyone. Are you a spy?
What's wrong with you man, do your homework before spitting out such venemous statements.
What's wrong with you man, do your homework before spitting out such venemous statements.
more...
makeup quot;Justin Bieber: Never Say
h1techSlave
04-15 10:11 AM
Economists generally say 6 months of expenses.
If you work in a hot technology with generally good job prospects I would say 3-4 months is good enough. Lot of people under estimate how much money they need on a monthly basis. My suggestion would be to calculate (last 12 months of your total after tax income - your actual savings amount) / 3. This is the amount you actually spend in an average 4 months period last year. Do not go by adding up various expenses. That might lead to missing various payments and would result in a lower monthly expense figure.
But it would be a good idea to start life insurance for the principal money earner of the family and a will by both parents.
We are looking to buy a house and the bank is asking us to put down 10%. How much money is considered safe to have after down-payment if we are buying a home. I know it depends on the situation, but I would like some estimates/ball-park figures.
If you work in a hot technology with generally good job prospects I would say 3-4 months is good enough. Lot of people under estimate how much money they need on a monthly basis. My suggestion would be to calculate (last 12 months of your total after tax income - your actual savings amount) / 3. This is the amount you actually spend in an average 4 months period last year. Do not go by adding up various expenses. That might lead to missing various payments and would result in a lower monthly expense figure.
But it would be a good idea to start life insurance for the principal money earner of the family and a will by both parents.
We are looking to buy a house and the bank is asking us to put down 10%. How much money is considered safe to have after down-payment if we are buying a home. I know it depends on the situation, but I would like some estimates/ball-park figures.
girlfriend Justin+ieber+never+say+never+
sroyc
08-06 10:34 AM
Although the discussion has deteriorated to a point where it will not be healthy anymore, these are valid questions.
I think a good compromise would be if interfiling is allowed only if the candidate was eligible for the EB2 position at the time of filing the EB3 labor. The current rule punishes those who go to grad school full-time, especially if you did a PhD but do not qualify for EB1.
I do agree that points raised by Rolling Flood is not well received by most in this forum.But I would pray that no one gets personal and keep the exchanges healthy.
I do feel that this porting rule is a double edged sword with both pros and cons.But the question is : is it flawed enough to scrapped??
I must add though, I see were Rolling flood is coming from.Just consider this scenario: Two guyz A&B graduate with a Bachelors degree at the same time.A decides to pursue higher studies and B takes up a job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school.By the time A graduates and a EB2 is filed for him , B is also eligible for EB2.But here is the catch,B gets a much earlier PD than A.So was A a dumb dude that he decided to go to grad school.Does academic experience count for nothing against work experience???
Its something to ponder upon.
I think a good compromise would be if interfiling is allowed only if the candidate was eligible for the EB2 position at the time of filing the EB3 labor. The current rule punishes those who go to grad school full-time, especially if you did a PhD but do not qualify for EB1.
I do agree that points raised by Rolling Flood is not well received by most in this forum.But I would pray that no one gets personal and keep the exchanges healthy.
I do feel that this porting rule is a double edged sword with both pros and cons.But the question is : is it flawed enough to scrapped??
I must add though, I see were Rolling flood is coming from.Just consider this scenario: Two guyz A&B graduate with a Bachelors degree at the same time.A decides to pursue higher studies and B takes up a job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school.By the time A graduates and a EB2 is filed for him , B is also eligible for EB2.But here is the catch,B gets a much earlier PD than A.So was A a dumb dude that he decided to go to grad school.Does academic experience count for nothing against work experience???
Its something to ponder upon.
hairstyles “Justin Bieber: Never Say
nk2006
09-30 10:13 AM
I was schocked to find out on Sep 22 that my I-485 has been denied. My wife is on AP and can't enter U.S now withot her H4.
Sorry to know your troubles. I am curious about the reason for 485 rejection and how you are going about it (is it because of using AC21 and I140 revocation by previous employer?) - there is an effort to deal with I-485 rejections without NOID - there is a separate thread on that with conf call today. Please join the call and give your details. Thanks.
Sorry to know your troubles. I am curious about the reason for 485 rejection and how you are going about it (is it because of using AC21 and I140 revocation by previous employer?) - there is an effort to deal with I-485 rejections without NOID - there is a separate thread on that with conf call today. Please join the call and give your details. Thanks.
diptam
08-05 11:13 AM
By now , we know very well who you are !! Because you ran away when peoples asked you real questions.
To answer your question same company can have EB2 as well as EB3 jobs and same person can be eligible for both Eb2 and Eb3 - that's why there is nothing illegitimate in porting/interfiling. Now a good % of folks port/interfile from a different company and according to your post that is not lawsuit material - right ?
Remember i'm planning to port to EB2 from Eb3 using a different company - according to you that's allowed ! Remember still EB2 quota will get exhausted .....
As per as your foul language complaint - please tune onto Talk radio and catch up with Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage - I'm sure your benchmark about 'Foul Language' will quickly change Sir !
Good bye !
Show me where it says in the law that a "person's eligibility decides EB1/2/3"? Your job demands an EB3 and no higher, thus your company filed an EB3.
If you think you should be EB2 instead, then find another job or another company. What do you not understand?
And please refrain from using foul language, this is my first, and final, request to you, sir. I am not anti-immigrant, just anti-porting and anti-interfiling.
To answer your question same company can have EB2 as well as EB3 jobs and same person can be eligible for both Eb2 and Eb3 - that's why there is nothing illegitimate in porting/interfiling. Now a good % of folks port/interfile from a different company and according to your post that is not lawsuit material - right ?
Remember i'm planning to port to EB2 from Eb3 using a different company - according to you that's allowed ! Remember still EB2 quota will get exhausted .....
As per as your foul language complaint - please tune onto Talk radio and catch up with Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage - I'm sure your benchmark about 'Foul Language' will quickly change Sir !
Good bye !
Show me where it says in the law that a "person's eligibility decides EB1/2/3"? Your job demands an EB3 and no higher, thus your company filed an EB3.
If you think you should be EB2 instead, then find another job or another company. What do you not understand?
And please refrain from using foul language, this is my first, and final, request to you, sir. I am not anti-immigrant, just anti-porting and anti-interfiling.
xyzgc
12-22 11:35 PM
Muslims have a very proud history (along with issues like most religions/races). Lets hope the people on all sides tone down the rheotric and live and let live
Hindus also have a history and we are proud of it.
Despite all the agressions by the barbaric islamic hordes, Hinduism has not only survived, it has actually flourished.
We are proud of the fact that we didn't attack other countries and pillage other lands.
Hindus also have a history and we are proud of it.
Despite all the agressions by the barbaric islamic hordes, Hinduism has not only survived, it has actually flourished.
We are proud of the fact that we didn't attack other countries and pillage other lands.
No comments:
Post a Comment