Monday, July 4, 2011

images %IMG_DESC_8% . %IMG_DESC_1%

  • %IMG_DESC_1%



  • bobzibub
    12-27 11:06 PM
    Please don't advocate war.

    A human death is a human death. Whether the fig leaf of state or some extremist views are used, it matters not to the mother who loses her kids. Bombs from planes are no better than bombs on belts. They just get better press.

    When you are attacked it is natural to want to respond to those attacks. That stems from your ancestors (as mine) who lived in some tribe struggling for life with scarce resources. But we know the results of this primitive thinking: look to the Americans.

    The Americans after 9/11 had such a blood lust that they attacked an unrelated country, killed a million civilians and will probably cost the US $3T all told. Iraq was bombed to the stone age and they are now a mess, no matter what their implausibly hopeful government claims. All because Americans and their institutions collectively lost their facility for critical thought. Their great thinkers "rationalized" themselves into a stupid, illegal war. And their militarist politicians and their corporate pals profited from terrorism every bit as much as Bin Laden. (For that they can rot in hell. But a cell in the Hague first.)

    If India attacks Pakistan, which many here seem to advocate, it will kill many more innocent civilians on both sides. War is a blunt instrument and will not have the intended consequences. Let no one pretend otherwise.

    If India can defeat the entire British Empire without firing a weapon, I can't believe that there isn't an ingenuitive solution to this mess. I can't believe that Indians and Pakistanis can't be the ones to solve it without weapons, especially nuclear ones.

    Nuclear weapons technology is old. Soon every country (and undergraduate engineering student) will posses the knowledge to build them. Yet if we continue to handle disputes in the same way that was bred into us when our people hunted on some African plane, it will be the end of all of us.





    wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1% . %IMG_DESC_2%
  • %IMG_DESC_2%



  • Macaca
    05-11 05:19 PM
    Obama Recasts Border Issue (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576315531789204212.html) By Laura Meckler | Wall Street Journal

    President Barack Obama on Tuesday tried a new tack on immigration, saying that beefed-up security along the U.S.-Mexico border has proved effective enough that it should draw Republican support for an overhaul of the nation's naturalization system.

    Mr. Obama said his administration had met the concerns of Republicans by increasing law-enforcement manpower to record levels and installing new surveillance technology and fencing.

    "We have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible," he said at the Chamizal National Memorial, as a giant Mexican flag waved across the Rio Grande river.

    The president cited several statistics to back up his assertion of tightened borders, including a nearly 40% decrease in arrests at the border, to about 463,000 in 2010. The administration says that is a sign that fewer people are attempting to illegally cross from Mexico.

    Mr. Obama didn't mention that deportations hit record levels last year�a trend that has drawn fire from some Hispanic advocates.
    The speech was aimed in part at reassuring voters who are worried about border security, and in part at renewing support among Hispanic voters he needs to boost his re-election campaign, particularly in Rocky Mountain states.

    He offered no new policy proposals Tuesday, and set no timetable for legislation. Instead, he called for those who support his proposals to build pressure for congressional action from outside Washington.

    The president said the new border-control measures will prevent another wave of illegal immigrants from flowing into the country if those already here are allowed to stay.

    Some prominent unions including the AFL-CIO have opposed immigration legislation in the past, concerned that new arrivals would pose competition for their members. Senators trying to craft an overhaul have said one of the obstacles has been coming up with a guest-worker program unions and business can support.

    Mr. Obama's legislative goals haven't changed since he spoke on immigration last summer, including a path to citizenship for the 10.8 million people already in the U.S. illegally, a program many Republicans oppose as a reward for lawbreaking. Mr. Obama also supports a guest-worker program and making it easier for foreign students educated in the U.S. to stay.

    There is virtually no GOP support in Congress for the legislation Mr. Obama wants, though some Republicans have embraced these ideas in the past.
    Mr. Obama predicted that no matter what he does, some Republican foes of his approach will demand more. "Maybe they'll need a moat," he said. "Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat."

    Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have crafted a $4 billion, 10-point plan that calls for double fencing where there is now single fencing and another 5,000 Border Patrol agents, on top of the 20,700 now in place.

    "We hear from our constituents on a daily basis, and, while some progress has been made in some areas, they do not believe the border is secure," Messrs. McCain and Kyl said in a statement Tuesday.

    They also pointed to a Government Accountability Office report that found the U.S. has "operational control" of 44% of the Southwest border with Mexico, meaning it has the ability to detect, respond and interdict illegal activity.The administration says that isn't a good measure and officials are working on a better one.

    Republicans face pressure within their party to keep the focus on tougher immigration enforcement. But some GOP leaders say the party also needs to improve its standing with Hispanics, the fastest-growing voter group in the U.S.

    But the president faces skepticism even from supporters heading into this latest push.

    "The moment to use pressure is gone. You missed it. The train left the station," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.). "I want to be honest with my constituents and with the American people. I don't want to rev them up for something that doesn't have any possibilities of success."


    President Obama at the Border (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/opinion/11wed1.html) New York Times Editorial
    A Question of Decency (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/87878/immigration-reform-dream-act-border-security) The New Republic Editorial
    Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) The Christian Science Monitor Editorial
    Hideously diverse Britain: a passage from India (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/10/hideously-diverse-britain-passage-india) By Hugh Muir | Guardian
    Britain's got (foreign) talent (http://www.economist.com/node/18648783) The Economist
    The Dark Night of Islam
    The revolutionary events shaking the Islamic world will not change an intolerant and obscurantist culture (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/266778/dark-night-islam-michael-knox-beran)
    By Michael Knox Beran | National Review
    Obama�s border visit renews focus on immigration policy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-border-visit-renews-focus-on-immigration-policy/2011/05/09/AF7cPMcG_story.html) By Peter Wallsten and Perry Bacon Jr. | The Washington Post
    New Call in Albany to Quit U.S. Immigration Program (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/nyregion/albany-lawmakers-protest-giving-immigrant-data-to-us.html) By KIRK SEMPLE | New York Times
    Obama�s El Paso coup (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-el-paso-coup/2011/05/10/AFaBXOjG_blog.html) By Lee Hockstader | The Washington Post
    In Border City Talk, Obama Urges G.O.P. to Help Overhaul Immigration Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/us/politics/11obama.html) By JACKIE CALMES | New York Times
    Securing the border with semantics (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/10/securing-the-border-with-semantics/) The Washington Times Editorial
    The Immigration Paradox (http://nationaljournal.com/politics/the-immigration-paradox-20110511) By Ron Brownstein | National Journal
    The demographic politics of immigration (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration_reform_0) The Economist
    Moving away from the border (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration_reform) The Economist





    . %IMG_DESC_3%
  • %IMG_DESC_3%



  • Macaca
    12-20 08:07 AM
    Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902643.html?hpid=topnews) By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 20, 2007

    The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments, from the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in a generation to the first minimum-wage hike in a decade.

    But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.

    Handed control of Congress last year after making promises to end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal discipline in Washington and check President Bush's powers, Democrats instead closed the first session of the 110th Congress yesterday with House votes that sent Bush $70 billion in war funding, with no strings attached, and a $50 billion alternative-minimum-tax measure that shattered their pledge not to add to the federal budget deficit.

    "I'm not going to let a lot of hard work go unnoticed, but I'm not going to hand out party hats, either," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).

    On Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday: "Nobody is more disappointed with the fact that we couldn't change that than I am." But Pelosi was not about to accept Republican assertions that her first year as speaker has been unsuccessful, saying: "Almost everything we've done has been historic."

    Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.

    The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.

    Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.

    The year's finale angered the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition, from the antiwar left to new Southern conservatives who helped bring Democrats to power last year.

    "This is a blank check," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."

    Still, the Democrats delivered much of what they promised last year. Of the six initiatives on the their "Six for '06" agenda, congressional Democrats sent five to the president and got his signature on four: a minimum-wage increase, implementation of the homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, college cost reduction, and an energy measure that requires conservation and the expanded use of renewable sources of energy.

    Federal funding for stem cell research was vetoed by Bush.

    Congress also boosted spending on veterans' needs. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled a proposal to create the first nonpartisan ethics review panel in House history and passed the most significant gun-control legislation since the early 1990s, tightening the instant background-check process.

    Beyond those, Democrats secured the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying rules since the Watergate scandal. And they passed a slew of measures that have received little notice, such as more money for math and science teachers who earn more credentials in their field, tax relief for homeowners in foreclosure, a doubling of basic research funding, and reclamation projects for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast.

    With the exception of the new energy law, Pelosi characterized most of the year's accomplishments as a cleanup after years of Republican neglect or congressional gridlock.

    But the long-awaited showdown with Bush on the federal budget fizzled this week into an uncomfortable draw. The president got his war funding, while Democrats -- using "emergency" funding designations -- broke through his spending limit by $11 billion, the amount they had promised to add after Republicans rejected a proposed $22 billion increase in domestic spending.

    Remarkably, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) praised the final omnibus spending bill in glowing terms, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called keeping federal spending at Bush's preferred level "an extraordinary success."

    "Our work on holding the line on spending gave us an omnibus that is better than I've seen in my 17 years here," Boehner said yesterday. Twelve of those years were spent under Republican rule.

    But the disappointments have dominated the news, in large part because Democrats failed on some of the issues that they had put front and center, and that their key constituents value most.

    The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.

    Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.

    Efforts to change Bush's Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. From the first days of the 110th Congress to its last hours this week, Bush prevailed on every Iraq-related fight, beginning with February's nonbinding resolution opposing the winter troop buildup and ending with this week's granting of $70 billion in unrestricted war funds. Emanuel tried to call the $70 billion funding a partial Democratic victory because it was the first time the president did not get everything he sought for the war. Bush had requested $200 billion.

    Some senior Democrats have grown so distraught that they do not expect any significant change in Iraq policy unless a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. "It's unfortunate that we may have to wait till the elections," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said yesterday.

    This has left many Democrats resorting to openly political arguments, picking up a theme that Republicans hurled at them -- obstructionism -- during their many years in the minority. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) conceded that it is time for Democrats to forget about trumpeting accomplishments that voters will never give them credit for -- and time to change the message to a starkly political one: If you want change, elect more Democrats.

    Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic whip tasked with trying to find 60 votes for a filibuster-proof majority, acknowledged this week that Democrats' biggest failure stemmed from expecting "more Republicans to take an independent stance" on Iraq. Instead, most of them stood with Bush.

    "Many of them will have to carry that with them into the election," Durbin said.





    2011 %IMG_DESC_2% . %IMG_DESC_4%
  • %IMG_DESC_4%



  • number30
    03-24 11:37 AM
    UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.

    No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.

    On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.

    When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.

    While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.


    What the consulting companies( Including Mine) are working like placement cell holding the stock of consultants. This is being questioned by the USCIS. They are understanding the mode of the operations. These stock does not have any usage unless they get some order. This is question was getting raised in H1B RFEs since last two-three years. With H1B you can escape with contracts between companies. But the concern with green card is will they accept such kind of agreements as proof of an permanent job? It will come to nature of the business of the company.

    (sorry for the Language )



    more...


    . %IMG_DESC_5%
  • %IMG_DESC_5%



  • abcdgc
    12-27 02:15 AM
    I am ambivalent about eliminating Pakistan's nuclear program. On the one hand, you are right that nukes in the hands of militants is a scary scenario. (Ironically, you increase the probability of the nukes falling into wrong hands by having a destabilizing war between Pakistan and India.)
    But then equally scary is a defenseless Pakistan against India. Atleast, thats our perception.
    I don't know who all controls the nukes. The army is certainly one part of it.

    Don't worry, those nukes don't work. Pakistan first tried to test its devices in 1998. And after much "troubleshooting", the home grown devices did not explode in 1998. Chinese had to step in for face saving to explode 5 devices just for sake of exploding "nukes". The reality is, those arrow shaped hollow metal shells are risky because that metal is heavy. Other than the weight of the metal shell, there is no risk from Pakistani "nukes" :p





    . %IMG_DESC_6%
  • %IMG_DESC_6%



  • nojoke
    01-03 04:22 PM
    Listen to this, The US attacked Iraq and that accomplished exactly what the terrorists want. Terrorists want to see chaos and disruption. I believe the US is losing the war on terror and the results from the failed Iraq invasion can get worse, since that may have generated one dozen Jihad style attackers to be unveiled in 5-20 years from now.

    India should not attack Pak and spend tons of money like the US did. Instead, invest all that money in secret services and let them penetrate the enemy line. Let the secret service perform a detailed investigation of sources, then apply snipers or other ways to take perpetrators down.

    The last thing we need now with this dreadful economy is another war. Palestinians are already starting the whole fire again. We do not need one more war.

    Wrong. First iraq war is not war against terrorist.
    Second, pakistan already is doing Jihad against India. They don't need a reason to start a Jihad. Their obsession to destroy India is so much poisoned in their blood and they really don't need a reason for the Jihad.
    Third- It is easy only in movies to use snipers to take down these men. Plus there are thousands and it is virtually impossible.
    I agree that war is a tough choice and probably our politicians use the drum beat to get votes. And probably there won't be a war. But some of the rationalizations give here in this forum is funny.



    more...


    . %IMG_DESC_7%
  • %IMG_DESC_7%



  • centaur
    02-25 05:25 PM
    Is this book available? maybe we can get a bunch of copies and send to some editors, John Stewart/Stephen Colbert and some legislators.

    If the author is approachable, maybe an interview with him and some TV personality could be tried.

    Indian techie slams CNN Lou Dobbs (http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/10-28a-04.asp)!, N. Sivakumar, October 28, 2004

    In a book titled "Dude, did I steal your job? Debugging Indian Computer programmers", the author, an Indian software engineer, has slammed Lou Dobbs of CNN for calling the foreign high-tech workers as non-tax payers, and humiliating the enormous contributions of foreign high-tech workforce to the American economy.

    "Foreign high-tech workers who come here on H-1B / L1 visas pay every tax that U.S. citizens do, including Social Security and Medicare. But if they return to their homeland, then they will not get any benefits from these programs. The recent recession cost the United States more than half a million foreign high-tech workers who had to return home after paying all these taxes. In fact, Americans owe them money"

    The author writes.

    "The ignorance to mention the stupendous contributions of immigrant high-tech workers was the primary cause for the anti-Indian atmosphere which is seen among computer professionals lately. Unfortunately, neither the media nor the public understand the foreign high-tech workforce. The net result: those who supported the foreign high-tech worker programs have taken a back seat to play safe, and Indians and others who came here on visas, and worked their butts off to make this country prosper are named 'slaves', 'dummies', and 'enemies'. writes the author, N.Sivakumar.

    The book also claims that bringing in foreign high-tech workforce at the right time was the primary reason for America's stupendous high-tech success, and gives statistics and evidence to prove that hadn't America acted quickly, the Europeans would have taken over the software dominance.

    The book also outlines the life, struggle and achievements of Indian programmers in America with entertaining facts, and is a prime discussion topic in many anti-outsourcing and immigration websites lately.





    2010 %IMG_DESC_3% . %IMG_DESC_8%
  • %IMG_DESC_8%



  • Macaca
    09-24 04:30 PM
    How To Write To Congress (http://consumerist.com/consumer/your-government/how-to-write-to-congress-302775.php) BY CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER | Consumerist, SEP 23 2007

    Writing to Congress is the single best way to express your view on public policy. The average consumer has a surprising ability to influence legislation by crafting a well written missive and avoiding several common mistakes.

    Why Personal Letters Beat Form Letters

    Don't get suckered in by the quick and easy "Write to Congress!" form letters littering the internet. Form letters are not an expression of values; they are a show of organizational strength. If the NRA convinces five million people to send letters opposing gun control, it shows that the NRA can muster five million people to action, not that five million people necessarily care about gun laws. Congressional offices know this and generally disregard form letters.

    So what happens when you send a letter?

    Every office has its own procedures for tabulating constituent correspondence, but most will produce a report at the end of week breaking down how many letters were received by issue area, separating out form letters from letters sent by individual constituents.

    Members treat each type of letter differently, but most look for individual letters as a barometer of their district's concerns. These are the letters that have the most influence, the ones we will show you how to write.

    What Should Your Letter Say?

    We adhere to the three paragraph rule: introduce yourself, introduce your issue, request action. Congressional offices have staffers whose days are spent solely on the mail, so make their lives easier by keeping letter succinct and to the point.

    Introduce Yourself: There is a two-prong test for determining your worth: 1) Are you a constituent? 2) Are you an important constituent? Feel free to puff up your chest. Are you a lifelong member of the district? Are you associated with community groups? Say so! Convince the reader that yours is a voice of experience and wisdom.

    Be specific: Don't just ask a Member to oppose mandatory binding arbitration agreements. Ask them to rush to the floor to support S.1782, The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007.

    Marshall Facts: Your argument - and you are making an argument - must be supported by facts. Feel free to use facts gleaned from us or other sources, but don't copy and paste paragraphs of pre-written text from form letters. Personal experiences are particularly effective, and often moving. Share them!
    Be Exceedingly Polite, Please: Congress attracts haughty personalities. Staffers don't appreciate being spoken down to or insulted. You are trying to rally them to your cause, so be nice!

    Clearly State Your Request: Plainly tell your representative that you want them to support or oppose a certain bill. If you want a response, explicitly (but politely!) ask for one.

    It should go without saying that your letter should follow all formal style guidelines, such as a return name and address, and should be free of spelling and grammatical errors.

    Send Your Letter To The Right Place

    Only write to your representatives. You have three: one Representative in the House, and two Senators. Do not send more than three letters. Some citizens try to get their voice heard by writing to all 435 members of the House. Congressional courtesy compels the 434 Members who do not represent the zealot to forward his letter to the one lucky Member who does. This angers the Member's staff greatly at the expense of any point you are trying to make.

    The addresses for your Representatives and Senators are available online, but don't waste your time with an email. Letters carry significantly more weight. Send your letter to the Capitol, where the legislative staff is based, though it will take a while to arrive since all incoming Congressional mail is irradiated thanks to those still-unidentified Anthrax mailers.

    For an even greater impact, send your letter care of the staffer covering the issue. These staffers - called Legislative Assistants - are the Member's eyes and ears on their assigned issue areas. Finding the staffer destined to read your letter is easy: call the Capitol switchboard (open 24 hours a day!) at (202) 224-3121, ask for your Member's office, and ask the person who answers for the name of the staffer handling the issue area or bill number. Once you get that name, address your letter like this:

    Member Of Congress
    c/o Staffer
    Office Building/Number
    Washington, DC 20515

    What Should You Expect In Return?

    Depends. There are 535 Congressional offices and each handles constituent correspondence differently. The vast majority respond to letters with either a form letter pre-written by a Legislative Assistant, or with a more personal response written by a Legislative Correspondent. Controversial issues that attract many letters normally receive a form letter response, while smaller issues or specific questions often receive the attention of a personalized response.

    Conclusion

    Members of Congress work for you. Without your votes, they won't stay in office. They go to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with you, their boss. Very few people take the time to write to a Member of Congress, so the few that do carry a disproportionate influence.

    Fifteen minutes is well worth the time to influence a $2 trillion enterprise.



    more...


    . %IMG_DESC_9%
  • %IMG_DESC_9%



  • nojoke
    04-21 04:33 PM
    When people are walking away from their homes, some here are suggesting it is the best time to buy :confused:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService4/idUSL1619195020080418
    ----------------------------------
    Increasing numbers of Americans are simply walking away from their houses and mortgages, increasing pressure on banks and the economy.

    Rapid house price falls in many parts of the United States will soon leave as many as one in five borrowers owing more on their loan than the house will fetch, removing at a stroke the single most powerful incentive to keep up with payments.

    The phenomenon of "walk aways" or "jingle mail," so called because of the noise the house keys make in the envelope mailed to the bank, is hard to measure but shows every sign of gathering pace and having a substantial impact.





    hair %IMG_DESC_4% . %IMG_DESC_10%
  • %IMG_DESC_10%



  • alisa
    01-04 02:13 AM
    Please don't kid yourself ...all these points seem so shallow that there's no way one could read too much into it. I find this exchange meaningful though it took me 4 posts. Please keep playing your game.I think you proved the point that I initially raised.

    Like someone pointed out before you can't wake up someone that's pretending sleeping.

    Thank you.

    OK.
    But I still can't figure out what your argument really is.

    Lets agree to disagree, I suppose. Let me know, if you can, what exactly and specifically it is that you didn't like about what I said.



    more...


    . %IMG_DESC_11%
  • %IMG_DESC_11%



  • GCOP
    07-14 10:30 AM
    I already mailed the Letter to Visa Section, DOS with a request to allocate some Visa Number to EB-3(India) to help to reduce the wait time. Did not mention about EB-2 or any other thing. Just a Request for EB-3 (India).





    hot %IMG_DESC_5% . %IMG_DESC_12%
  • %IMG_DESC_12%



  • unitednations
    07-09 11:57 AM
    Very insightful.

    So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.

    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.



    more...


    house %IMG_DESC_17% . %IMG_DESC_13%
  • %IMG_DESC_13%



  • axp817
    03-25 09:10 AM
    When United Nations talks, I listen.

    And learn.

    I'll go back to listening now.

    Thanks,





    tattoo %IMG_DESC_6% . %IMG_DESC_14%
  • %IMG_DESC_14%



  • jkays94
    10-03 12:49 PM
    Its a pity when it is obvious through numerous congressional debates who the culprits are in blocking EB friendly legislation. Here we are again with the EB recapture bill and who again is blocking it? The New York times identifies them by name and nowhere does it mention Durbin. Its thus is beyond comprehension when unfounded future claims of doom, apprehension and fear are spread without the basis and contrary to facts presently before us. Instead one needs to be more concerned about the possible reelection of the two below and several of their sidekicks:

    Jeff Sessions (R)
    Steve King (R)

    A House bill that could recapture an estimated 550,000 lost visas, sponsored by Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, has been moving slowly through the committee process despite the best efforts of members like Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, to sabotage it with ridiculously restrictive amendments.

    In the Senate, Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is insisting that a visa-recapturing amendment be added to a bill reauthorizing E-Verify, the federal database program to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. For this, he has endured an onslaught of criticism from nativist groups and colleagues, like Jeff Sessions of Alabama. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03fri2.html?ex=1380772800&en=282e9836144364be&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)



    more...


    pictures %IMG_DESC_7% . %IMG_DESC_15%
  • %IMG_DESC_15%



  • yabadaba
    08-11 09:03 AM
    Pappu, if u put in cable news network and state = Georgia...it will pull up 15 records of h1b applications made by CNN in 2005. maybe someone needs to tell dobbs that. 9 H1 B for fox





    dresses %IMG_DESC_12% . %IMG_DESC_16%
  • %IMG_DESC_16%



  • heywhat
    08-02 01:09 PM
    So are you not working for company which is processing your GC application?

    My case is intent-to-hire for 485, so my attorney just took 3 paystubs and 1 w2 for filing. Is that ok?



    more...


    makeup %IMG_DESC_9% . %IMG_DESC_17%
  • %IMG_DESC_17%



  • Macaca
    04-03 08:22 AM
    Soliciting for Good Citizens (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201749_2.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/), Tuesday, April 3, 2007

    Another backdoor lobbying technique (oops, I mean opportunity to celebrate and assist members of Congress) is to conspicuously contribute to a foundation that supports a congressional caucus.

    Congress is filled with caucuses -- the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and the Congressional Internet Caucus, to name just a few. These are groups of like-minded lawmakers who meet regularly to discuss the subjects in which they have a common interest.

    But, Washington being Washington, money quickly enters the equation. Some caucuses have foundations that help bankroll events.

    The Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, for instance, sponsors gatherings in conjunction with the House co-chairmen of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Its "supporters group" includes dozens of tech firms that lobby Congress intensely, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.

    The advisory committee's next large event is an April 25 "Wireless Policy and Practices Dialogue." To pay the tab, its Web site lists "sponsorship opportunities," available for $500 to $5,000. A sampling (before it was apparently altered yesterday):

    "Pens and other promotional items: Distribute pens with your logo to event attendees."

    "Coffee breaks: We'll announce your sponsorship of the morning continental breakfast or mid-morning coffee break and feature your logo or brand in the break area."

    "Wi-Fi Hotspot: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor."

    "Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner: End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.'s finest restaurants."

    None of these constitute lobbying. Companies become sponsors "to prove that they are not only a thought leader in the space but also that they are a good corporate citizen," said Danielle Yates, the advisory committee's spokeswoman.

    Oh.





    girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14% . %IMG_DESC_18%
  • %IMG_DESC_18%



  • nixstor
    08-10 10:45 PM
    Yewwwww. Stupid morons get to run the show on CNN who consider guest worker program for Illegal Aliens and H1B the same.

    I dont understand why USCIS has to release data to a random attorney guy.
    Why the hell doesnt he know how many H1B's are being issued every year? Is this attorney guy sleeping or what? 65K and they are gone on May26th 2006Huh?





    hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11% . %IMG_DESC_19%
  • %IMG_DESC_19%



  • RaviG
    07-14 08:24 PM
    the spill over from EB1 should go equally to Eb2 and Eb3..can we work on getting this message across.

    I dont understand your argument, may be I misunderstood. Who will benefit from EB1 to EB3 spill over ROW or retrogressed countries. It likely EB3 ROW. So why EB3 Indian writing the letter? May be things should be more clear about what you want to achieve.





    HopeSprings
    08-06 10:48 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.

    sroyc,
    What a resolution!!! I completely agree with you. Interfiling should NOT be scrapped but limited to people who qualified for the later category (EB2/EB1) on the date of their PD.





    paskal
    04-09 11:47 AM
    The job description can be put in the way that points to your plus points. If you go the Harvard Biz. school you will have those. I dont think they want you to leave. There will be other avenues out there.

    pete,

    i am a physician and in the same boat as you. my employer searched high and dry before i came along. but you are missing something here. except universities that can hire the "best candidate", every other employer has to employ a citizen/gc applicant with the "minimum qualifications for the job". please revisit the rules if you do not understand this. your talent and extra skills count for nothing. employers cannot take the best applicant...if an LCA is needed. this is a very significant problem if applied to H1B renewals. Any tom dick and harry can displace you every 3 years. think about it please, not just your own situation. i am strongly in favor of H1B reform. i believe that this if linked with a bill like strive dramatically increase support for retrogression relief. however the reform needs to be thought through carefully. a 6 mnth LCA process for each renewal would kill us. let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...



    0 comments:

     

    blogger templates | Make Money Online