srr_2007
04-07 12:39 AM
You are wrong, see my post above. Even if you stay at same employer, your H1 wont be extended if you file for extension. If extension fails, its goodbye for employee and loss of employee and revenue for employer.
EVERYONE LOSES.
Thanks for the clarification.
EVERYONE LOSES.
Thanks for the clarification.
wallpaper Big Sean - My Last ft.
ItIsNotFunny
04-13 01:27 PM
You mean to say Employer splitting the earnings with employee? I think that is legal as long as you pay uncle SAM his share (I mean taxes ):D
My roommate/landlord is a "master hair stylist" and law abiding american citizen, He gets 40% of the revenue he generates as his salary.
What section of law says that it is illegal to work on percentage basis .
It is not illegal to work on percentage basis. But if employer-employee relationship is now followed the way it should be followed by law then there are issues. For example, you are not in the same medical plans as employees or your work insurance is not covered (or you are not invited in annual christmas party for employees - just kidding). Specially, labor approval procedure has heavy dependency on prevailing wages and salary offered. In percentage basis there is no salary offered. Think about it.
There is a gray area here. You can believe it is legal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is illegal. The certifying officer may believe that it is illegal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is legal.
My roommate/landlord is a "master hair stylist" and law abiding american citizen, He gets 40% of the revenue he generates as his salary.
What section of law says that it is illegal to work on percentage basis .
It is not illegal to work on percentage basis. But if employer-employee relationship is now followed the way it should be followed by law then there are issues. For example, you are not in the same medical plans as employees or your work insurance is not covered (or you are not invited in annual christmas party for employees - just kidding). Specially, labor approval procedure has heavy dependency on prevailing wages and salary offered. In percentage basis there is no salary offered. Think about it.
There is a gray area here. You can believe it is legal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is illegal. The certifying officer may believe that it is illegal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is legal.
dartkid31
05-31 07:28 PM
I think Lou Dobbs is mostly comic relief for most of us at this point. The only tragedy in this scenario is that he has access to idiot boxes across the country for an hour eveyday, and there are people who wholeheartedly believe the drivel he spews everyday. :( CNN should be embarrassed.
2011 Big Sean – My Last (Feat.
![big sean my last mp3. My Last [Explicit] - Big Sean](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51uP7V8alxL.jpg "My Last [Explicit] - Big Sean")
kc_p21
12-26 12:58 PM
I suggest that you provide your opinion on some other forum. This forum is only for Immigration matters. Learn to use it appropriately.
Thanks,
Thanks,
more...
fide_champ
03-23 11:21 PM
it is not just america losing - the person who has bought the house would lose his downpayment / equity too -not to speak of the mighty credit score - am I right ??
depends on yr situation and your priorities and more important the place where you are planning to buy. is it in florida, mich, Ohio, california or nevada (I guess no - else you would not have asked this question). if you think of a house as investment and you dont want to take a loss - then wait. if you need the space desperately and you are o.k with the prospect of yr house depreciating for couple of years - then go ahead and buy. BTW there was another thread where this was discussed in detail
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17986
I live in NJ close to the cherry hill area and i am looking to buy only in Burlington county. I have been living here for about 9 years now and so far haven't thought of investing here. I invested in india and the investment appreciated 4 times or more so i am happy about the decision. I actually needed a bigger place now and i am not seeing that as a investment but if it turns out that way that's fine with me. I just wanted to find out what are people's experiences with the house escpecially for those who are under H1/EAD.
depends on yr situation and your priorities and more important the place where you are planning to buy. is it in florida, mich, Ohio, california or nevada (I guess no - else you would not have asked this question). if you think of a house as investment and you dont want to take a loss - then wait. if you need the space desperately and you are o.k with the prospect of yr house depreciating for couple of years - then go ahead and buy. BTW there was another thread where this was discussed in detail
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17986
I live in NJ close to the cherry hill area and i am looking to buy only in Burlington county. I have been living here for about 9 years now and so far haven't thought of investing here. I invested in india and the investment appreciated 4 times or more so i am happy about the decision. I actually needed a bigger place now and i am not seeing that as a investment but if it turns out that way that's fine with me. I just wanted to find out what are people's experiences with the house escpecially for those who are under H1/EAD.
GCnightmare
08-02 02:55 PM
Thanks for the quick reply. I never overstayed my I-94 either before leaving US or re-entering US. But just a thought... Do you mean if somebody covered by 245(i) and never left US after filing the labor before April 2001, still be eligible to adjust status?
Thanks
Thanks
more...
gcgreen
08-06 02:22 PM
Relief in the form of no caps or country quotas. Earlier priority dates is kind of arbitrary IMHO.
This is a better proposition, asking for more relief to Masters or PHD guys makes more sense than asking USCIS to stop porting/interfiling and denying EB3 guys a chance to get faster GC after they have waited for many many years.
This is a better proposition, asking for more relief to Masters or PHD guys makes more sense than asking USCIS to stop porting/interfiling and denying EB3 guys a chance to get faster GC after they have waited for many many years.
2010 Download MP3 Player
axp817
03-26 05:50 PM
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
So when they started picking on these other things, do you know what eventually ended up happening - denial/approval?
I tried looking on immigration.com, a lot of hits came up when i searched for "baltimore AC21" but none of them were this particular case.
Aren't there many consulting scenarios where the labor is filed in a certain state but the employee (although worked for the same employer) worked in another location on H-1B (with due LCA amendments of course). Is that not acceptable from a GC perspective?
sorry, I don't mean to drag this topic on forever.
thanks,
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
So when they started picking on these other things, do you know what eventually ended up happening - denial/approval?
I tried looking on immigration.com, a lot of hits came up when i searched for "baltimore AC21" but none of them were this particular case.
Aren't there many consulting scenarios where the labor is filed in a certain state but the employee (although worked for the same employer) worked in another location on H-1B (with due LCA amendments of course). Is that not acceptable from a GC perspective?
sorry, I don't mean to drag this topic on forever.
thanks,
more...
gimme_GC2006
03-25 03:28 PM
ok..lets see how it goes.
I did not hire an attorney nor took a consultation..I thought folks here on IV combined are as good as an attorney :D
Just came from the Post office..sent all documents they asked for including Resume.
I dont know if my employer responded..I called them but they didn't respond..typical..huh
Lets see how it goes..
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), you will see me in
"Alberta Welcomes H1b" thread.. :D:D:D
I did not hire an attorney nor took a consultation..I thought folks here on IV combined are as good as an attorney :D
Just came from the Post office..sent all documents they asked for including Resume.
I dont know if my employer responded..I called them but they didn't respond..typical..huh
Lets see how it goes..
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), you will see me in
"Alberta Welcomes H1b" thread.. :D:D:D
hair My Last [Explicit] - Big Sean
Rayyan
01-07 05:58 PM
^^^^^
more...
rajuram
07-13 02:20 PM
It is funny how EB2s are crying like little babies. Just a hint of EB3 getting more visas is making you guys sweat. You people have all the luck, nothing is going to happen so RELAX.
Just remember that there are a lot of EB3 out there with Masters degrees, like myself, and waiting since early 2002.
EB3s - mail out the letter PLEASE!!!!!
Just remember that there are a lot of EB3 out there with Masters degrees, like myself, and waiting since early 2002.
EB3s - mail out the letter PLEASE!!!!!
hot “My Last” f/ Chris Brown
jkays94
06-01 01:28 PM
jkays
my comment was all tongue in cheek. My only point is that Lou comes off as more conservative than Shaun Hannity and isn't that something.
Its all about the $$ and competition with other networks which are giving CNN a run for its money. So much so it makes sense for CNN not to talk about money matters but topics that appeal to ultra conservative audiences. Dobbs in particular appears willing to go to any lower level to get his points across. And yes, you are right he does use FAIR, NumbersUSA and the Heritage Foundation as his sources for "statistics" and guests on his show.
Dobbs's immigration reporting marked by misinformation, extreme rhetoric, attacks on Mexican president, and data from organization linked to white supremacists (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605240011)
Additional links on the supremacist (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?xpicked=3&item=12) citation as a source by Dobbs :
Link 1 (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/BlogBox/12), Link 2 (http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/052106.htm#052306)
CNN's Dobbs, Christian Science Monitor cited dubious Heritage Foundation study on immigration (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250014) - This is the same study that Jeff Sessions presented to the Senate.
my comment was all tongue in cheek. My only point is that Lou comes off as more conservative than Shaun Hannity and isn't that something.
Its all about the $$ and competition with other networks which are giving CNN a run for its money. So much so it makes sense for CNN not to talk about money matters but topics that appeal to ultra conservative audiences. Dobbs in particular appears willing to go to any lower level to get his points across. And yes, you are right he does use FAIR, NumbersUSA and the Heritage Foundation as his sources for "statistics" and guests on his show.
Dobbs's immigration reporting marked by misinformation, extreme rhetoric, attacks on Mexican president, and data from organization linked to white supremacists (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605240011)
Additional links on the supremacist (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?xpicked=3&item=12) citation as a source by Dobbs :
Link 1 (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/BlogBox/12), Link 2 (http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/052106.htm#052306)
CNN's Dobbs, Christian Science Monitor cited dubious Heritage Foundation study on immigration (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250014) - This is the same study that Jeff Sessions presented to the Senate.
more...
house My Last Feat Chris Brown
sanju
12-30 01:20 AM
I think you missed my point. Which was that the 'solution' that Mr rinku1112 was suggesting, destabilizing Pakistan by funding dissident groups, is something that Pakistan already suspects India is doing. And there might be some truth to it. So, then, Pakistan would want to fund groups that would try to destabilize India.
Thats the vicious cycle.
Your point is understood and well taken, however, the only difference is, Pakistan is already committed and entirely focused in their attempts to destabilize India. The way Pakistan behaves, it seems that their sole purpose is to destabilize India. Pakistan have carried such activities since 1947, the more so after 1971. On the other hand, India is not committed to destabilize Pakistan, not yet. Which is ok, because Pakistan has enough percentage of its committed population doing a good job in destabilizing Pakistan. India is not yet spending its resources, and we all want India to spend substantial budget, say over $50 billion an year, to destabilize & disintegrate Pakistan. India is not directly involved in any destabilization of Pakistan, and the news on Geo TV and other bull shit channels are all pure lies. But those news will be ok once Indian government gets directly involved in the counter offensive.
.
Thats the vicious cycle.
Your point is understood and well taken, however, the only difference is, Pakistan is already committed and entirely focused in their attempts to destabilize India. The way Pakistan behaves, it seems that their sole purpose is to destabilize India. Pakistan have carried such activities since 1947, the more so after 1971. On the other hand, India is not committed to destabilize Pakistan, not yet. Which is ok, because Pakistan has enough percentage of its committed population doing a good job in destabilizing Pakistan. India is not yet spending its resources, and we all want India to spend substantial budget, say over $50 billion an year, to destabilize & disintegrate Pakistan. India is not directly involved in any destabilization of Pakistan, and the news on Geo TV and other bull shit channels are all pure lies. But those news will be ok once Indian government gets directly involved in the counter offensive.
.
tattoo Artist: Big Sean Ft Chris
Desichakit
08-06 11:01 AM
I think clearing an exam like IIT-JEE in no way makes a person Superior over others. I my self have cleared IIT-JEE and am EB2 India, but still I see this proposed/planned Law suit to be ill thought off.
Rolling Flood: I can only say that you can give any logic for this Lawsuit and it can be countered by any other logic why it is incorrect.
Some body Porting from EB3 to EB2 if it is done sucessfully previoyusly then it is Lawfull.
Many countries had their Jaichand's who will go to any extent for their own benefit, but society, nations thrive even after that.
Your comments is very welcome because it gives all of us 1 more reason to be united than divided.
PS.: When there is flood in Gangaji then it is not revered, only when it is within its banks it is revered and does good for society
Rolling Flood: I can only say that you can give any logic for this Lawsuit and it can be countered by any other logic why it is incorrect.
Some body Porting from EB3 to EB2 if it is done sucessfully previoyusly then it is Lawfull.
Many countries had their Jaichand's who will go to any extent for their own benefit, but society, nations thrive even after that.
Your comments is very welcome because it gives all of us 1 more reason to be united than divided.
PS.: When there is flood in Gangaji then it is not revered, only when it is within its banks it is revered and does good for society
more...
pictures Download Chris Brown Yeah 3x
NKR
04-14 04:21 PM
Exactly. This argument of buying house for kids is no argument. You can argue on either side. The problem is when NKR made a statement that it is big deal to not buy a house because your kid will ask "can you give back my childhood?". As if a 7 year old will regret not owning a house. The child will also regret not owning a playstation3, eat chocalates all the time, play all time. We all know what we wanted when we were kids.
Comparing buying playstation3 and chocolates with buying a house is nojoke. The argument of buying playstation3 and chocolates is no argument.
Comparing buying playstation3 and chocolates with buying a house is nojoke. The argument of buying playstation3 and chocolates is no argument.
dresses My Last ft. Chris Brown Big
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
more...
makeup My Last 12.Big Nut Bust
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.
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.
girlfriend (Pic) Big Sean – Finally
unitednations
03-25 04:05 AM
As a matter of fact, any one if trained properly can do any job..
So the requirement of basic education can be challenged for any position.. But Can CIS get in the way of running business decisions?? If any company (including consulting) wants to hire staff, shouldn't they have a say in who should be in their office?? If a staffing company policy is to only hire Post graduates, can CIS stop them? Isn't this too much intervention by government?
Another point is Why this intepretation is different for non-consulting companies? If Cisco can mandate an FTE on H1B to be Masters, how come a consultant working for same Cisco need to prove that the position requires Masters?? What they are doing is wrong.. If some litigation lawyer can find a racially motivated pattern, they will be in big trouble.. Just my thoughts...
That case was decided in 2000 after the h-1b had been filed; denied; appealed; though on layer of court and then finally decided by this court. This is why it is difficult to challenge USCIS; it takes years and years for it to weave though the system.
USCIS could have used this case many years ago; however, vermont service center didn't apply the principles of this case until 2007. Once; senators/congressmen started putting pressure on them to start getting tough.
Although they think there may be gaming of the system; they have to find a legal way to teach people a lessson. This case is what they can legally do to deny h-1b's.
So the requirement of basic education can be challenged for any position.. But Can CIS get in the way of running business decisions?? If any company (including consulting) wants to hire staff, shouldn't they have a say in who should be in their office?? If a staffing company policy is to only hire Post graduates, can CIS stop them? Isn't this too much intervention by government?
Another point is Why this intepretation is different for non-consulting companies? If Cisco can mandate an FTE on H1B to be Masters, how come a consultant working for same Cisco need to prove that the position requires Masters?? What they are doing is wrong.. If some litigation lawyer can find a racially motivated pattern, they will be in big trouble.. Just my thoughts...
That case was decided in 2000 after the h-1b had been filed; denied; appealed; though on layer of court and then finally decided by this court. This is why it is difficult to challenge USCIS; it takes years and years for it to weave though the system.
USCIS could have used this case many years ago; however, vermont service center didn't apply the principles of this case until 2007. Once; senators/congressmen started putting pressure on them to start getting tough.
Although they think there may be gaming of the system; they have to find a legal way to teach people a lessson. This case is what they can legally do to deny h-1b's.
hairstyles Big Sean
![big sean my last mp3. Chris Brown] | Big Sean](http://stnmusichq.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/img_0127-scaled1000.jpg%3Fw%3D500%26h%3D500 "Chris Brown] | Big Sean")
mbartosik
04-09 12:23 AM
We've met with a lot of law makers and their aids, and really the housing down turn is not an argument for GC that is productive to use. If I get 30 minutes with a law maker's aid, each minute is valuable I can muster many more compelling arguments in that time.
So to answer your question: yes IV has considered this, but only for about 2 seconds. It is something that is not worth raising with law makers or media.
---------
When I bought my house no one was bothered about I485 etc., partly because they thought prices only moved up, and more importantly I had over 20% deposit, I had the money credit score and an SSN that's all they cared about then. I would only put mortgage in name of people with SSN, do not use tax payer ID. My wife does not have SSN, and it causes delays and hassle for things like credit cards. Also hope you have US driver license that is not marked as temporary as I could see that causing trouble at closing if someone is overly fussy.
So to answer your question: yes IV has considered this, but only for about 2 seconds. It is something that is not worth raising with law makers or media.
---------
When I bought my house no one was bothered about I485 etc., partly because they thought prices only moved up, and more importantly I had over 20% deposit, I had the money credit score and an SSN that's all they cared about then. I would only put mortgage in name of people with SSN, do not use tax payer ID. My wife does not have SSN, and it causes delays and hassle for things like credit cards. Also hope you have US driver license that is not marked as temporary as I could see that causing trouble at closing if someone is overly fussy.
gc28262
03-24 03:03 PM
Again, I am not the one you should be asking to define "full-time" and "temp" type jobs. Ask USCIS or DOL or whoever is going to adjudicate your green card.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
All your assumptions about H1B is only for full time jobs is flawed. USCIS has not said that. There is no law that says that.
BTW why do you think LCA requirements are meant only for consulting companies ? It is applicable to all H1B candidates. That has been the law for a long time. Nothing new here for you to be happy about.
Your posts are driven by your ignorance than any legal base. You need to educate yourself in immigration perspective.
Why USCIS audits are focused on consulting companies ?
It is not because consulting is not allowed on H1B. It is because they figured out that H1B violation are more prominent among small companies.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
All your assumptions about H1B is only for full time jobs is flawed. USCIS has not said that. There is no law that says that.
BTW why do you think LCA requirements are meant only for consulting companies ? It is applicable to all H1B candidates. That has been the law for a long time. Nothing new here for you to be happy about.
Your posts are driven by your ignorance than any legal base. You need to educate yourself in immigration perspective.
Why USCIS audits are focused on consulting companies ?
It is not because consulting is not allowed on H1B. It is because they figured out that H1B violation are more prominent among small companies.
gapala
12-24 08:17 PM
I know you must have left the forums by now. But I find it interesting how you are being misled by the so called leaders in India itself. Check this column by Tarun Vijay http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/Tarun_Vijay_Thou_shalt_rise_again/articleshow/3882599.cms Check out the differences between Shabana and other muslim leaders on the forum. Interesting!
Insightful article. Imagine what is going on under currents... they seems to have 2 faces. There is a investigative video floating in youtube where one idiot is preaching youths in UK to show secular face to society until achieve their goal. Same idiot goes out and conducts interfaith conference and talks about unity. what a hypocrat.
Insightful article. Imagine what is going on under currents... they seems to have 2 faces. There is a investigative video floating in youtube where one idiot is preaching youths in UK to show secular face to society until achieve their goal. Same idiot goes out and conducts interfaith conference and talks about unity. what a hypocrat.
No comments:
Post a Comment