eb3_nepa
07-29 10:10 PM
Then we let the CITIZENS of the country decide what is best for their country! Guys understand one thing, it is a numbers game.
1) Legal Employment Based Immigrants: LESS THAN 0.5 Million with NO CITIZENS to back us.
2) Illegal Immigrants: MORE THAN 12 million with a HUGE chunk of the Hispanic CITIZENS to back them up.
Even the citizens who DO oppose Illegal immigration, SIMPLY OPPOSE illegal immigration, but DO NOT SUPPORT legal immigration per se.
Please DO NOT make the mistake of taking on the CHC at this point, it is a fight that is IMPOSSIBLE for us to win and POINTLESS to even fight. If we win against the CHC (big IF), we win NOTHING, if we lose, we now have bigger problems.
1) Legal Employment Based Immigrants: LESS THAN 0.5 Million with NO CITIZENS to back us.
2) Illegal Immigrants: MORE THAN 12 million with a HUGE chunk of the Hispanic CITIZENS to back them up.
Even the citizens who DO oppose Illegal immigration, SIMPLY OPPOSE illegal immigration, but DO NOT SUPPORT legal immigration per se.
Please DO NOT make the mistake of taking on the CHC at this point, it is a fight that is IMPOSSIBLE for us to win and POINTLESS to even fight. If we win against the CHC (big IF), we win NOTHING, if we lose, we now have bigger problems.
wallpaper house roken heart poems for
senthil1
04-10 06:20 PM
The numbers were not too much as the expectation was much more as last 2 years cap was reached and expected to file more persons. If H1b is filed based on real job requirements the cap must be enough.
this happened because alot of students filed through multiple employers
(read desi consultants) to better their chances
i hope they do something about this artificial inflation and fraud bodyshoppers
the masters quota would never have gone into lottery then
this happened because alot of students filed through multiple employers
(read desi consultants) to better their chances
i hope they do something about this artificial inflation and fraud bodyshoppers
the masters quota would never have gone into lottery then
ngopikrishnan
07-13 09:44 AM
Good news to report!!
AP (for myself & spouse) and EAD (for myself) Renewal Paper filed at TSC - Self Filed
USPS'd AP & EAD apps - 6/2
Reached TSC - 6/3
Receipt Date - 6/4
LUDs on AP & EAD apps - 6/11
AP Approval Email (for myself & spouse) - 6/29
LUDs on AP apps (for myself & spouse) - 6/30
APs (for myself & spouse) received on - 7/4
EAD Card Production Ordered Email (for myself) - 7/13 *** Card Production was ordered on 7/11 ***
AP (for myself & spouse) and EAD (for myself) Renewal Paper filed at TSC - Self Filed
USPS'd AP & EAD apps - 6/2
Reached TSC - 6/3
Receipt Date - 6/4
LUDs on AP & EAD apps - 6/11
AP Approval Email (for myself & spouse) - 6/29
LUDs on AP apps (for myself & spouse) - 6/30
APs (for myself & spouse) received on - 7/4
EAD Card Production Ordered Email (for myself) - 7/13 *** Card Production was ordered on 7/11 ***
2011 roken heart poems for girls.
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
shree772000
10-15 05:17 PM
Considering the lowered cost of stock I am planning to gets my hands dirty in stock. But I don't have much knwoeldge about it. Also, by the time I find resouces to learn more about stock, the prices might ahve gone up.
So can anyone provide good online tools to know more about investing on stocks and buying stocks online...
Thanks
There are way better places than this forum to discuss about stocks. You will get much more response from those sites as the people there share similiar intrests as you. I do not understand the point in discussing stocks here.
Would you go to liquor store and buy groceries?
What you are trying to do is similiar.
So can anyone provide good online tools to know more about investing on stocks and buying stocks online...
Thanks
There are way better places than this forum to discuss about stocks. You will get much more response from those sites as the people there share similiar intrests as you. I do not understand the point in discussing stocks here.
Would you go to liquor store and buy groceries?
What you are trying to do is similiar.
hkimmi
12-22 06:05 PM
Does one have to stick to old employer for 180 days after I-140 is approved before person can start with new employer and port priority date from previous job ?
I never heard of that 180 day rule for I140.. better to check with Attorney...
even Iam interested to know that .....
I never heard of that 180 day rule for I140.. better to check with Attorney...
even Iam interested to know that .....
more...
xbohdpukc
09-25 05:10 PM
No one has ever been denied mortgage because their green card is pending, all other things (credit record, finances etc) being equal...that would constitute housing discrimintaion...
Just a thought, especially in response to those (and there are some on this forum) who feel discriminated in this country and compare their situation to that of exploited laborers in some podunk land...
This will not amount to discrimination in any way. If you are not able to show the proof that you are legally entitled to staying in the country for the coming 3-5 years (and many people here are extending their H1 status every year) it will be very risky for a lender to extend a 15-30 year mortgage to you.
As a matter of fact in a very competitive market lenders most likely won't turn your application down, but will make you pay more in interest, which again does not qualify as any kind of discrimination.
Just a thought, especially in response to those (and there are some on this forum) who feel discriminated in this country and compare their situation to that of exploited laborers in some podunk land...
This will not amount to discrimination in any way. If you are not able to show the proof that you are legally entitled to staying in the country for the coming 3-5 years (and many people here are extending their H1 status every year) it will be very risky for a lender to extend a 15-30 year mortgage to you.
As a matter of fact in a very competitive market lenders most likely won't turn your application down, but will make you pay more in interest, which again does not qualify as any kind of discrimination.
2010 Broken Heart Poems For Teens
485Mbe4001
05-19 01:07 AM
honest opinion, talk to a good lawyer about this. your case is unique so dont depend comments from us. Companies have always used the carrot and stick aproach, with GCs, its just our luck that we roll the dice with this process and how we are exploited. You can stand your ground and negotiate with your firm, to a certain extent they need you too. Your I-40 is owned by the company, so they are the ones sponsoring you. Besides your current lawyers will probably have all your papers and approvals. Our lawyer did not even give us the I 140 number as we did not file it. I guess you might need all the 140 papers when you file for 485
more...
v7461558
07-13 12:21 PM
A bunch of suits on a Saturday afternoon in downtown San Jose will sure look strange. Silicon Valley dress code is not the same as New York, or LA for that matter. Slacks and a shirt (maybe a tie) seem to do it even at venture capitalist meetings with company founders.
hair poems for the roken hearted.
softcrowd
02-17 09:46 AM
"U" does not mean quota is done for FY 08...it may be "U" becoz for those categoreis, quarterly quota exhausted....USCIS normally does not grab the entire FY's quota at one time...they do it quarterly basis.
Even i think definitely before Oct itself, EB2 India moves ahead.
Even i think definitely before Oct itself, EB2 India moves ahead.
more...
chapper
11-11 03:29 PM
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/338/workinprogress2xj2.th.jpg (http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=workinprogress2xj2.jpg)
hot roken heart poems for girls.
needhelp!
11-15 09:46 AM
Few days back I was talking to two members from a district in texas where these two were the only members (state chapter members. I am sure there are a hundred others who live there, but have not joined our chapter) These two have taken the initiative to go and meet their local congressman, even though it means a two hour drive for one of them (Texas districts are big)
It is very heartening to see this happening, and if everyone just goes and meets their own representative, and makes him aware of our issues, we will be moving in the right direction.
Please join your state chapter, talk to others (WE ARE ALL SIMPLE PEOPLE, JUST LIKE YOU) who are doing it and be inspired to do the same.
It is very heartening to see this happening, and if everyone just goes and meets their own representative, and makes him aware of our issues, we will be moving in the right direction.
Please join your state chapter, talk to others (WE ARE ALL SIMPLE PEOPLE, JUST LIKE YOU) who are doing it and be inspired to do the same.
more...
house Broken Heart Poems and Quotes
shreekhand
07-25 12:11 PM
Some clarifications needed here !
1.) Data entry is not done by adjudication officers (AO)
2.) Unless an AO is trained in a particular "production line"
(I-485, I-765 etc.) they cannot move them around
3.) Bear in mind AO's have the option to and do work from home too.
4.) The adjudication rate per past service center reports is
around 2 or3 cases per hour for I-485
The assumptions here are all the 50 guys are working only on EB cases no family and other cases, they are not doing any other data entry job like putting 450/ead/ap applications into system, they are not approving any of ead/ap cases. And they are working 8 hours daily. Looking at the general work environment around i bet the productive hrs in 8 hr work day is around 5/6 hrs. So keeping in mind these factors i feel the 80000 is okay number. They certainly need more staff. My 2 cents.
1.) Data entry is not done by adjudication officers (AO)
2.) Unless an AO is trained in a particular "production line"
(I-485, I-765 etc.) they cannot move them around
3.) Bear in mind AO's have the option to and do work from home too.
4.) The adjudication rate per past service center reports is
around 2 or3 cases per hour for I-485
The assumptions here are all the 50 guys are working only on EB cases no family and other cases, they are not doing any other data entry job like putting 450/ead/ap applications into system, they are not approving any of ead/ap cases. And they are working 8 hours daily. Looking at the general work environment around i bet the productive hrs in 8 hr work day is around 5/6 hrs. So keeping in mind these factors i feel the 80000 is okay number. They certainly need more staff. My 2 cents.
tattoo 2011 Poems For Broken Hearts broken heart poems for girls. roken heart poems
gc007
01-07 10:38 PM
I wud just like to add that shud you travel and use your current visa your new I-94 will be stamped with date June 07. Then you have to extend you H-4 and your old approval will not be valid.
These are just my thoughts. And I am not a layer.
Have a great trip
Thank you very much .
These are just my thoughts. And I am not a layer.
Have a great trip
Thank you very much .
more...
pictures roken heart poems for girls.
ruchigup
08-22 04:16 PM
Is your current employer supportive with respect to revoking 140 ? It looks like, you are doing H1 not using EAD ?
Yes my employer is supportive with respect to not revoking I-140.
Yes my employer is supportive with respect to not revoking I-140.
dresses roken heart poems for girls.
anurakt
01-21 02:12 PM
I joined Immigration voice on orkut. My name is Chandrakanth
Thanks , I see lot of people joining now.
Thanks , I see lot of people joining now.
more...
makeup roken heart poems for boys.
guesswho
06-11 03:09 PM
Sunny1000,
Please be careful before replying. If you do not know, don't answer.
I have seen numerous posts that say, you can get a 3 yrs H-1 based on your previous company's I-140. (of course, it should not have been revoked). This is based on peoples experience. So don't confuse other people if you are not sure.
You cannot port your I-140 to the new company. So, your H1B will also get affected as it extn is based on the underlying I-140. The only way you can accomplish moving to company B is by filing for I-485 while still at Company A (if your dates are current), wait for 6 months and then, use the AC21 provision.
This is just my view. There might be better ways but, that is the only one I can think right now.
Please be careful before replying. If you do not know, don't answer.
I have seen numerous posts that say, you can get a 3 yrs H-1 based on your previous company's I-140. (of course, it should not have been revoked). This is based on peoples experience. So don't confuse other people if you are not sure.
You cannot port your I-140 to the new company. So, your H1B will also get affected as it extn is based on the underlying I-140. The only way you can accomplish moving to company B is by filing for I-485 while still at Company A (if your dates are current), wait for 6 months and then, use the AC21 provision.
This is just my view. There might be better ways but, that is the only one I can think right now.
girlfriend Broken Heart Poems: roken
NikNikon
May 23rd, 2005, 08:43 PM
Gary, I'm just thinking of mine which is a circular polarizer. You rotate the polarizer to achieve the desired amount of polarization. So I can rotate it one way and either darken or lighten the sky. All but your last pic looked as if it was darker on the right side which lead me to the assumption it was a circular type. There's a linear type too which I have never used so I'm not sure how it works, but I imagine it doesn't rotate (anyone?).
hairstyles roken heart poems for girls.
Friend
02-19 09:17 AM
USCIS people rejected the Application. Now the application is with my Attorney. So which option I need to select the for the taking the Info Pass appointment. My Attorney is telling if they accept the application and they put any RFE so that we can take the Info Pass appointment is it correct?
Can you suggest which option i need to select for info pass appointment for my case?
Thanks for your valuable response.
Thanks.
Can you suggest which option i need to select for info pass appointment for my case?
Thanks for your valuable response.
Thanks.
ak27
03-27 08:59 AM
I had checked it with our Attorney and it is fine to work on Volunteer basis. However, there are very few oraganizations which will let you work. Working of the books is illegal...
sankap
08-13 10:39 AM
Can you share how you can check your status online after you've filed I-485? Who would send you the URL --your immi lawyer or the USCIS? Also, my lawyers filed said they filed my 485, AP, EAD the same day. Is that possible?
No comments:
Post a Comment