485Mbe4001
11-27 12:49 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/opinion/27brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
NY Times Op-Ed Columnist
Follow the Fundamentals
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: November 27, 2007
Lou Dobbs is winning. He’s not winning personally. He’s not going to start winning presidential awards or elite respect. But his message is winning. Month by month the ideas that once prevailed on the angry fringe enter the mainstream and turn into conventional wisdom.
Once there was a majority in favor of liberal immigration policies, but apparently that’s not true anymore, at least if you judge by campaign rhetoric. Once there was a bipartisan consensus behind free trade, but that’s not true anymore, either. Even Republicans, by a two-to-one majority, believe free trade is bad for America, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll.
Once upon a time, the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the world are rising out of poverty would have been a source of pride and optimism. But if you listen to the presidential candidates, improvements in the developing world are menacing. Their speeches constitute a symphony of woe about lead-painted toys, manipulated currencies and stolen jobs.
And if Dobbsianism is winning when times are good, you can imagine how attractive it’s going to seem if we enter the serious recession that Larry Summers convincingly and terrifyingly forecasts in yesterday’s Financial Times. If the economy dips as seriously as that, the political climate could shift in ugly ways.
So it’s worth pointing out now more than ever that Dobbsianism is fundamentally wrong. It plays on legitimate anxieties, but it rests at heart on a more existential fear — the fear that America is under assault and is fundamentally fragile. It rests on fears that the America we once knew is bleeding away.
And that’s just not true. In the first place, despite the ups and downs of the business cycle, the United States still possesses the most potent economy on earth. Recently the World Economic Forum and the International Institute for Management Development produced global competitiveness indexes, and once again they both ranked the United States first in the world.
In the World Economic Forum survey, the U.S. comes in just ahead of Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden and Germany (China is 34th). The U.S. gets poor marks for macroeconomic stability (the long-term federal debt), for its tax structure and for the low savings rate. But it leads the world in a range of categories: higher education and training, labor market flexibility, the ability to attract global talent, the availability of venture capital, the quality of corporate management and the capacity to innovate.
William W. Lewis of McKinsey surveyed global competitive in dozens of business sectors a few years ago, and concluded, “The United States is the productivity leader in virtually every industry.”
Second, America’s fundamental economic strength is rooted in the most stable of assets — its values. The U.S. is still an astonishing assimilation machine. It has successfully absorbed more than 20 million legal immigrants over the past quarter-century, an extraordinary influx of human capital. Americans are remarkably fertile. Birthrates are relatively high, meaning that in 2050, the average American will be under 40, while the average European, Chinese and Japanese will be more than a decade older.
The American economy benefits from low levels of corruption. American culture still transmits some ineffable spirit of adventure. American students can’t compete with, say, Singaporean students on standardized tests, but they are innovative and creative throughout their lives. The U.S. standard of living first surpassed the rest of the world’s in about 1740, and despite dozens of cycles of declinist foreboding, the country has resolutely refused to decay.
Third, not every economic dislocation has been caused by trade and the Chinese. Between 1991 and 2007, the U.S. trade deficit exploded to $818 billion from $31 billion. Yet as Robert Samuelson has pointed out, during that time the U.S. created 28 million jobs and the unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent from 6.8 percent.
That’s because, as Robert Lawrence of Harvard and Martin Baily of McKinsey have calculated, 90 percent of manufacturing job losses are due to domestic forces. As companies become more technologically advanced, they shed workers (the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs between 1994 and 2004).
Meanwhile, the number of jobs actually lost to outsourcing is small, and recent reports suggest the outsourcing trend is slowing down. They are swamped by the general churn of creative destruction. Every quarter the U.S. loses somewhere around seven million jobs, and creates a bit more than seven million more. That double-edged process is the essence of a dynamic economy.
I’m writing this column from Beijing. I can look out the window and see the explosive growth. But as the Chinese will be the first to tell you, their dazzling prosperity is built on fragile foundations. In the United States, the situation is the reverse. We have obvious problems. But the foundations of American prosperity are strong. The U.S. still has much more to gain than to lose from openness, trade and globalization.
NY Times Op-Ed Columnist
Follow the Fundamentals
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: November 27, 2007
Lou Dobbs is winning. He’s not winning personally. He’s not going to start winning presidential awards or elite respect. But his message is winning. Month by month the ideas that once prevailed on the angry fringe enter the mainstream and turn into conventional wisdom.
Once there was a majority in favor of liberal immigration policies, but apparently that’s not true anymore, at least if you judge by campaign rhetoric. Once there was a bipartisan consensus behind free trade, but that’s not true anymore, either. Even Republicans, by a two-to-one majority, believe free trade is bad for America, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll.
Once upon a time, the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the world are rising out of poverty would have been a source of pride and optimism. But if you listen to the presidential candidates, improvements in the developing world are menacing. Their speeches constitute a symphony of woe about lead-painted toys, manipulated currencies and stolen jobs.
And if Dobbsianism is winning when times are good, you can imagine how attractive it’s going to seem if we enter the serious recession that Larry Summers convincingly and terrifyingly forecasts in yesterday’s Financial Times. If the economy dips as seriously as that, the political climate could shift in ugly ways.
So it’s worth pointing out now more than ever that Dobbsianism is fundamentally wrong. It plays on legitimate anxieties, but it rests at heart on a more existential fear — the fear that America is under assault and is fundamentally fragile. It rests on fears that the America we once knew is bleeding away.
And that’s just not true. In the first place, despite the ups and downs of the business cycle, the United States still possesses the most potent economy on earth. Recently the World Economic Forum and the International Institute for Management Development produced global competitiveness indexes, and once again they both ranked the United States first in the world.
In the World Economic Forum survey, the U.S. comes in just ahead of Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden and Germany (China is 34th). The U.S. gets poor marks for macroeconomic stability (the long-term federal debt), for its tax structure and for the low savings rate. But it leads the world in a range of categories: higher education and training, labor market flexibility, the ability to attract global talent, the availability of venture capital, the quality of corporate management and the capacity to innovate.
William W. Lewis of McKinsey surveyed global competitive in dozens of business sectors a few years ago, and concluded, “The United States is the productivity leader in virtually every industry.”
Second, America’s fundamental economic strength is rooted in the most stable of assets — its values. The U.S. is still an astonishing assimilation machine. It has successfully absorbed more than 20 million legal immigrants over the past quarter-century, an extraordinary influx of human capital. Americans are remarkably fertile. Birthrates are relatively high, meaning that in 2050, the average American will be under 40, while the average European, Chinese and Japanese will be more than a decade older.
The American economy benefits from low levels of corruption. American culture still transmits some ineffable spirit of adventure. American students can’t compete with, say, Singaporean students on standardized tests, but they are innovative and creative throughout their lives. The U.S. standard of living first surpassed the rest of the world’s in about 1740, and despite dozens of cycles of declinist foreboding, the country has resolutely refused to decay.
Third, not every economic dislocation has been caused by trade and the Chinese. Between 1991 and 2007, the U.S. trade deficit exploded to $818 billion from $31 billion. Yet as Robert Samuelson has pointed out, during that time the U.S. created 28 million jobs and the unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent from 6.8 percent.
That’s because, as Robert Lawrence of Harvard and Martin Baily of McKinsey have calculated, 90 percent of manufacturing job losses are due to domestic forces. As companies become more technologically advanced, they shed workers (the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs between 1994 and 2004).
Meanwhile, the number of jobs actually lost to outsourcing is small, and recent reports suggest the outsourcing trend is slowing down. They are swamped by the general churn of creative destruction. Every quarter the U.S. loses somewhere around seven million jobs, and creates a bit more than seven million more. That double-edged process is the essence of a dynamic economy.
I’m writing this column from Beijing. I can look out the window and see the explosive growth. But as the Chinese will be the first to tell you, their dazzling prosperity is built on fragile foundations. In the United States, the situation is the reverse. We have obvious problems. But the foundations of American prosperity are strong. The U.S. still has much more to gain than to lose from openness, trade and globalization.
wallpaper al amor de Dios.wmv
wawa
09-30 03:32 PM
Hey prince ...
just like my case...H1 transfer pending and case reopened on previous approved H1b....I would request everybody to keep an eye on all your H1 approvals, past and present, so that in case you guys have the same issue ..you can quickly search this tread for feedback....
Hi smartboy75/prince,
This reopened H1B case for me is a 7th year extention, I got it approved on Feb. 28 2006. I haven't received the mailed notice, maybe it would come Tuesday or Wednesday.
just like my case...H1 transfer pending and case reopened on previous approved H1b....I would request everybody to keep an eye on all your H1 approvals, past and present, so that in case you guys have the same issue ..you can quickly search this tread for feedback....
Hi smartboy75/prince,
This reopened H1B case for me is a 7th year extention, I got it approved on Feb. 28 2006. I haven't received the mailed notice, maybe it would come Tuesday or Wednesday.
hope2007
07-18 02:19 PM
Can anyone pls post the tel num to call USCIS.
2011 el amor a dios.
saketh555
02-16 03:51 PM
Congrats!!
Good to know that USCIS folks are working.
Good to know that USCIS folks are working.
more...
never_giveup
09-17 01:52 PM
I am not seeing any movement in the video. I can just see the American Eagle on the screen? any idea whats going on.. ? ??
Try closing ur window and re-opening it. It works for me now.
Try closing ur window and re-opening it. It works for me now.
dpp
02-01 02:07 PM
Fraud is not correct word, it is because of lack of policies or loop holes in the current Immigration System. This can be found in any system, any country, any people. So, there is no need to talk on that. It is better to put our EB related retrogression problems to Congress and no use in discussing these. Otherwise If you start discussing on fraud, every work done by everybody is going to have some kind of fraud. It is to survive and so people do whatever it is, with in the limits of law.
All people who are being labelled as socalled "Americans" came here like immigrats and theft the land from Native indians. So, everybody is doing wrong. That's part of time. So, no need to blame just few. It is being done by everybody. So, please skip the topic and focus on the our current problems.
All people who are being labelled as socalled "Americans" came here like immigrats and theft the land from Native indians. So, everybody is doing wrong. That's part of time. So, no need to blame just few. It is being done by everybody. So, please skip the topic and focus on the our current problems.
more...
jthomas
05-29 07:11 PM
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-153059.html
Foreign laborers break the law by collecting unemployment
the other person is also a IV member on the post. Anti-immigrants have been comming to our site and collecting information about your discussion. I am not at all worried about anything.
Please do not fight with conflicting topics which is of no use.
Did you guys looked at the latest projections given by USCIS, its on murthy.com. For those who want to wait 10-15 years in limbo, i will pray for you all. For those who want to explore new options, i want to wish you best of luck,
Foreign laborers break the law by collecting unemployment
the other person is also a IV member on the post. Anti-immigrants have been comming to our site and collecting information about your discussion. I am not at all worried about anything.
Please do not fight with conflicting topics which is of no use.
Did you guys looked at the latest projections given by USCIS, its on murthy.com. For those who want to wait 10-15 years in limbo, i will pray for you all. For those who want to explore new options, i want to wish you best of luck,
2010 amor a dios. El Amor de Dios,
NNReddy
04-18 06:55 PM
BelmontBoy,
You didn't answer my question. Can you work for two companies processing your green card at the same time. I am working for employer A for 13 years and EB3 green card process pending for 8 years. Now while working for Company A, Can I start green card process through Company B(for part time work) and do porting to EB2? Please clarify. I am not intending to quit immediately after getting Green Card, I will work for 6 months after Green card for Company B(for part time)?
Is this legal to work full time for one company and part time for another company(I have EAD), both of them are processing green card at the same time? Is there a chance of getting RFE's OR Is there a chance of getting your original application getting rejected because of multiple employments and two green card process's at the same time.
Thanks
NN
You didn't answer my question. Can you work for two companies processing your green card at the same time. I am working for employer A for 13 years and EB3 green card process pending for 8 years. Now while working for Company A, Can I start green card process through Company B(for part time work) and do porting to EB2? Please clarify. I am not intending to quit immediately after getting Green Card, I will work for 6 months after Green card for Company B(for part time)?
Is this legal to work full time for one company and part time for another company(I have EAD), both of them are processing green card at the same time? Is there a chance of getting RFE's OR Is there a chance of getting your original application getting rejected because of multiple employments and two green card process's at the same time.
Thanks
NN
more...
Macaca
11-09 12:06 PM
The Grassley Visa Tax (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119397030162580100.html) The Wall Street Journal Editorial, November 2, 2007
Congress has failed to pass immigration reform, so industries that depend on foreign workers have already been left in the lurch. But Senator Chuck Grassley now wants to make things worse.
Last week Mr. Grassley, the Iowa Republican, slipped an amendment into a spending bill that would tax businesses that hire skilled immigrants an additional $3,500 per visa to a total of $5,000 each. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, this represents a $3.1 billion tax increase over five years on some of America's fastest growing companies.
Companies employing foreign professionals who are here on H-1B visas already pay $1,500 per individual. The fee was originally set at $500 in 1998, but at least past increases have also included a rise in the number of available visas. When Mr. Grassley floated this tax back in April, it would have been part of a Senate bill that lifted the H-1B visa cap by 50,000 and put in place an escalator provision that allowed market demand to determine future increases.
But the Grassley Tax proposed last week includes no such trade-off, leaving the H-1B visa cap of 65,000 per year intact. The need to increase this arbitrary quota, if not eliminate it, is clear. This year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services received approximately 120,000 applications for H-1Bs on the first day they were available.
In addition to the hiring fee, current law already requires H-1B professionals to be paid the higher of the prevailing wage or actual wage paid to Americans in similar positions. So it's not as if U.S. businesses pursue foreign engineers, computer scientists and the like because they're cheaper to employ. Nor are these foreign workers overrunning the country and displacing Americans. In 2006, new H-1B professionals comprised 0.07 percent of the labor force.
Citing anecdotal evidence -- "People have called our office," a spokeswoman tells us -- Senator Grassley says the fee increase is necessary to combat abuse and fraud. But the back wages owed to H-1B hires amounted to just $4.6 million in 2006, down from $5.2 million the previous year. In a $12 trillion economy, those numbers are infinitesimal. Department of Labor investigations reveal that some 90% of violations are paperwork offenses and good-faith misunderstandings.
The Senator also maintains that his tax increase is needed to fund more federal programs for high-achieving U.S-born students, who are notoriously underrepresented in math and science. Leaving aside the dubious notion that the federal government doesn't spend enough money on education, the high-tech industry has already shelled out more than $2 billion to fund scholarships over the past decade. And that's not counting their other philanthropic efforts, nor the state and local taxes these companies pay to support public education.
Mr. Grassley's justifications notwithstanding, the reality is that these skilled foreign nationals help U.S. companies compete globally and keep jobs and innovation inside the U.S. This is especially important when other countries are opening their doors to this human capital. The European Union, which says it's facing a shortage of some 20 million skilled workers over the next two decades, has announced plans to streamline its immigration process to attract foreign talent.
So while even European bureaucrats are wising up to the importance of attracting global talent to keep an economy competitive, a Republican Senator is joining liberal protectionists to move the U.S. in the opposite direction. Go figure. If Congress can't see its way to fix our broken immigration system, the least it can do is not drive more jobs offshore.
Investing in America, Making Things Worse (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119449088264586132.html) By Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) | Wall Street Journal, Nov 8, 2007
I'm startled to learn that The Wall Street Journal seriously believes that an investment in American students will make things worse for U.S. businesses ("The Grassley Visa Tax," editorial, Nov. 2).
Your editorial asserts that the number of foreign workers on H-1B visas is so minimal that we shouldn't care if Americans are in fact displaced. I challenge the Journal to wave their labor force figures in the face of one of the hi-tech workers who have had to train their own replacement who is an H-1B visa holder. That's a smack in the face to the American worker and hardly an issue to take lightly.
I am committed to an effort to include additional H-1B reforms and increase the visa supply along with an increased investment to educate Americans. But, I strongly disagree that the only solution is to increase our reliance on foreign workers by raising the annual cap. Reforms to the program must be a top priority. Big business cannot continue to ignore the home-grown American talent who should be getting at least a good portion of these jobs.
Congress has failed to pass immigration reform, so industries that depend on foreign workers have already been left in the lurch. But Senator Chuck Grassley now wants to make things worse.
Last week Mr. Grassley, the Iowa Republican, slipped an amendment into a spending bill that would tax businesses that hire skilled immigrants an additional $3,500 per visa to a total of $5,000 each. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, this represents a $3.1 billion tax increase over five years on some of America's fastest growing companies.
Companies employing foreign professionals who are here on H-1B visas already pay $1,500 per individual. The fee was originally set at $500 in 1998, but at least past increases have also included a rise in the number of available visas. When Mr. Grassley floated this tax back in April, it would have been part of a Senate bill that lifted the H-1B visa cap by 50,000 and put in place an escalator provision that allowed market demand to determine future increases.
But the Grassley Tax proposed last week includes no such trade-off, leaving the H-1B visa cap of 65,000 per year intact. The need to increase this arbitrary quota, if not eliminate it, is clear. This year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services received approximately 120,000 applications for H-1Bs on the first day they were available.
In addition to the hiring fee, current law already requires H-1B professionals to be paid the higher of the prevailing wage or actual wage paid to Americans in similar positions. So it's not as if U.S. businesses pursue foreign engineers, computer scientists and the like because they're cheaper to employ. Nor are these foreign workers overrunning the country and displacing Americans. In 2006, new H-1B professionals comprised 0.07 percent of the labor force.
Citing anecdotal evidence -- "People have called our office," a spokeswoman tells us -- Senator Grassley says the fee increase is necessary to combat abuse and fraud. But the back wages owed to H-1B hires amounted to just $4.6 million in 2006, down from $5.2 million the previous year. In a $12 trillion economy, those numbers are infinitesimal. Department of Labor investigations reveal that some 90% of violations are paperwork offenses and good-faith misunderstandings.
The Senator also maintains that his tax increase is needed to fund more federal programs for high-achieving U.S-born students, who are notoriously underrepresented in math and science. Leaving aside the dubious notion that the federal government doesn't spend enough money on education, the high-tech industry has already shelled out more than $2 billion to fund scholarships over the past decade. And that's not counting their other philanthropic efforts, nor the state and local taxes these companies pay to support public education.
Mr. Grassley's justifications notwithstanding, the reality is that these skilled foreign nationals help U.S. companies compete globally and keep jobs and innovation inside the U.S. This is especially important when other countries are opening their doors to this human capital. The European Union, which says it's facing a shortage of some 20 million skilled workers over the next two decades, has announced plans to streamline its immigration process to attract foreign talent.
So while even European bureaucrats are wising up to the importance of attracting global talent to keep an economy competitive, a Republican Senator is joining liberal protectionists to move the U.S. in the opposite direction. Go figure. If Congress can't see its way to fix our broken immigration system, the least it can do is not drive more jobs offshore.
Investing in America, Making Things Worse (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119449088264586132.html) By Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) | Wall Street Journal, Nov 8, 2007
I'm startled to learn that The Wall Street Journal seriously believes that an investment in American students will make things worse for U.S. businesses ("The Grassley Visa Tax," editorial, Nov. 2).
Your editorial asserts that the number of foreign workers on H-1B visas is so minimal that we shouldn't care if Americans are in fact displaced. I challenge the Journal to wave their labor force figures in the face of one of the hi-tech workers who have had to train their own replacement who is an H-1B visa holder. That's a smack in the face to the American worker and hardly an issue to take lightly.
I am committed to an effort to include additional H-1B reforms and increase the visa supply along with an increased investment to educate Americans. But, I strongly disagree that the only solution is to increase our reliance on foreign workers by raising the annual cap. Reforms to the program must be a top priority. Big business cannot continue to ignore the home-grown American talent who should be getting at least a good portion of these jobs.
hair imagenes de amor a dios. el
alisa
02-11 08:05 PM
Anytime such discussions come up, invariably a few people jump on board threatening to quit IV. Who are you threatening? Are you helping yourself by quitting the fight to solve your problem?
First of all, I am not threatening to quit IV.
Secondly, even if I quit, its not going to matter to IV.
IV's goal is to fight retrogression. So whoever wants to fight retrogression should stay on board.
Thats why I am here. However, everytime someone talks about giving visa numbers from EB3-ROW to EB-2 India/China as the ONLY freaking thing in the world to do, I have to point it out to them that they are talking taking those visa numbers away from ROW-EB3. And that my friend, is not in the interest of ROW-EB3. Nor does it benefit India-EB3, or China EB-3.
However, it is the privilege of a few affected people to discuss their problems on these threads. You are not obligated to follow these discussions if they are not to your taste. It is a legitimate question.
I also enjoy that very same privilege. We are not here for things that we appeal to our 'taste'. This is not a forum discussing 'Borat'. We are here to talk about our interests as they relate to greencard and retrogression.
Clearly USCIS is using one interpretation of the law while there is another possible one.
Exactly. USCIS is using an interpretation of the law. EB-2 India doesn't like the current interpretation. EB-3 ROW doesn't like the alternate interpretaion. EB-3 India doesn't care. If you can say you don't like the current interpretation, you should be ready to hear form others that they don't like the alternate interpretation.
The discussion here doesn't mean that IV will flip tomorrow and say they will fight for only India/China EB2s.
Thats why I am still here. Thats why ROW-EB3 is here. And thats why India-EB3 and China EB-3 are here.
Here is the current situation, as of Febuary 11th, 2007.
EB-3 ROW : BaselineA
EB-3 India : BaselineB
EB-2 India : BaselineC
We make efforts, and then this happens.
Outcome 1:
EB-3 ROW : BaselineA - DeltaA
EB-3 India : BaselineB
EB-2 India : BaselineC + DeltaA
Clearly, this is not an optimal solution.
IV's goals should be, and to the best of my knowledge, are:
Outcome 2:
EB-3 ROW : BaselineA + DeltaA
EB-3 India : BaselineB + DeltaB
EB-2 India : BaselineC + DeltaC
Maybe, DeltaC is the biggest delta and EB-2 India becomes current in a single month. Thats ok. Thats great.
Anytime you talk about Outcome1, you will give a pause to people like me (EB-3 ROW). Lets focus on Outcome2, and you will have my wholehearted support.
First of all, I am not threatening to quit IV.
Secondly, even if I quit, its not going to matter to IV.
IV's goal is to fight retrogression. So whoever wants to fight retrogression should stay on board.
Thats why I am here. However, everytime someone talks about giving visa numbers from EB3-ROW to EB-2 India/China as the ONLY freaking thing in the world to do, I have to point it out to them that they are talking taking those visa numbers away from ROW-EB3. And that my friend, is not in the interest of ROW-EB3. Nor does it benefit India-EB3, or China EB-3.
However, it is the privilege of a few affected people to discuss their problems on these threads. You are not obligated to follow these discussions if they are not to your taste. It is a legitimate question.
I also enjoy that very same privilege. We are not here for things that we appeal to our 'taste'. This is not a forum discussing 'Borat'. We are here to talk about our interests as they relate to greencard and retrogression.
Clearly USCIS is using one interpretation of the law while there is another possible one.
Exactly. USCIS is using an interpretation of the law. EB-2 India doesn't like the current interpretation. EB-3 ROW doesn't like the alternate interpretaion. EB-3 India doesn't care. If you can say you don't like the current interpretation, you should be ready to hear form others that they don't like the alternate interpretation.
The discussion here doesn't mean that IV will flip tomorrow and say they will fight for only India/China EB2s.
Thats why I am still here. Thats why ROW-EB3 is here. And thats why India-EB3 and China EB-3 are here.
Here is the current situation, as of Febuary 11th, 2007.
EB-3 ROW : BaselineA
EB-3 India : BaselineB
EB-2 India : BaselineC
We make efforts, and then this happens.
Outcome 1:
EB-3 ROW : BaselineA - DeltaA
EB-3 India : BaselineB
EB-2 India : BaselineC + DeltaA
Clearly, this is not an optimal solution.
IV's goals should be, and to the best of my knowledge, are:
Outcome 2:
EB-3 ROW : BaselineA + DeltaA
EB-3 India : BaselineB + DeltaB
EB-2 India : BaselineC + DeltaC
Maybe, DeltaC is the biggest delta and EB-2 India becomes current in a single month. Thats ok. Thats great.
Anytime you talk about Outcome1, you will give a pause to people like me (EB-3 ROW). Lets focus on Outcome2, and you will have my wholehearted support.
more...
rimzhim
02-05 04:18 PM
I think this is great idea EB3_NEPA. We need to work on this!!! A good interim solution. That way we can actually show the contribution that we can make to the society as a family. Does anyone have an idea where we can start?
How about sending letters to our representatives and then contacting the media on the plight of our spouses rather than on us!!! May be the human rights folks can help us on this.
can the H4 not apply for a new H1B? Is H4 barred from applying for H1B? If not, I don't see where the prob lies. plus how will this solve the retrogression issue?
How about sending letters to our representatives and then contacting the media on the plight of our spouses rather than on us!!! May be the human rights folks can help us on this.
can the H4 not apply for a new H1B? Is H4 barred from applying for H1B? If not, I don't see where the prob lies. plus how will this solve the retrogression issue?
hot imagenes de amor a dios
ganguteli
06-02 11:50 AM
Chanduv23,
Can someone use AC21 even if the person has not worked in the company but 180 days has passed?
Can someone use AC21 even if the person has not worked in the company but 180 days has passed?
more...
house El Amor de Dios
alterego
12-06 10:03 PM
I think each person can write their own story and here are a few writing points as appropriate.
1) How long you have been here, and how despite your contributions in work and taxes, creativity(of jobs?) and maintainineg legal status, you have been left in a difficult spot of no permanency of status.
2) How you have benefited from this country and would like to give back, and understood that to be the tradition on which america was built.
3) If you have US born Children. That it would be unjust to ask them to be brought up elsewhere.
4) That your entrepreneural ideas have been held back by your inability to have permanency of tenure here.
5) That you never understood that to be the way it is done in America. However, a little voice keeps telling you to never quit on America, as she eventually gets it right.
6) That you have been unable to buy a home due to this issue and wonder why it is that you can't help yourself while helping America. That you have a stable job, 20% down, excellent credit and the whole nine yards except the green card. That there are thousands like you waiting to jump in.
7) How the US gov't bureaucracy has "wasted" over half a million green cards already allocated annually by congress, all happened while there were years long queues and merely recapturing those visas has been blocked by gridlock.
8) Mention Immigrationvoice in your e mail, and state that we have some great ideas on how to make the EB system more efficient and would love to be engaged in improving the system.
1) How long you have been here, and how despite your contributions in work and taxes, creativity(of jobs?) and maintainineg legal status, you have been left in a difficult spot of no permanency of status.
2) How you have benefited from this country and would like to give back, and understood that to be the tradition on which america was built.
3) If you have US born Children. That it would be unjust to ask them to be brought up elsewhere.
4) That your entrepreneural ideas have been held back by your inability to have permanency of tenure here.
5) That you never understood that to be the way it is done in America. However, a little voice keeps telling you to never quit on America, as she eventually gets it right.
6) That you have been unable to buy a home due to this issue and wonder why it is that you can't help yourself while helping America. That you have a stable job, 20% down, excellent credit and the whole nine yards except the green card. That there are thousands like you waiting to jump in.
7) How the US gov't bureaucracy has "wasted" over half a million green cards already allocated annually by congress, all happened while there were years long queues and merely recapturing those visas has been blocked by gridlock.
8) Mention Immigrationvoice in your e mail, and state that we have some great ideas on how to make the EB system more efficient and would love to be engaged in improving the system.
tattoo amor a dios. el amor a
yabadaba
01-30 07:53 AM
awesome news...for the first time in months there is a little positive news...kudos to DOL
more...
pictures el amor a dios
for_gc
12-09 10:18 AM
Can somebody please explain what does LUD stand for ? Thanks in advance.
dresses el amor a dios. el amor de
ilikekilo
04-15 01:32 PM
Sameet and others,
I checked with both pediatrician and Civil surgeon and they both are of the opinion that TST test would not impact a nursing mom.
My attorney told me that my wife needs to get back before her scheduled trip. This would incur huge costs plus it would be difficult to get the seat arrangements. ( We have a twins and we have seats with bassinets for the infants). My father is also travelling with her.
Is it possible to ask 1 month extension for RFE based on the difficulties. I'm EB3 IND PD 2003 and I dont think our I-485 is waiting for adjudication any time soon.
I've scheduled an infopass appointment tomorrow. What are the chances of getting an extension when I present my case to IO?
I'm worried and it makes us very anxious.
GCisaDawg
Hey, sorry for your situation, I can only imagine, I cant even manage one here..:rolleyes:
pun aside, here is my 2 cents
1) did you talk to your lawyer?
2) if # 1 is ruled out or of no use, I would personally draft a letter showing that she is travellling right now and with kids and it would be extremely difficult to get her TB test done as you cant get it done by that RFE due date. add some more stuff telling your situation as to why she cant come right away due to the stuff you mentioned (kids/babies ). IAm sure you WILL get it exteneded.
you made a good point here - Is it possible to ask 1 month extension for RFE based on the difficulties. I'm EB3 IND PD 2003 and I dont think our I-485 is waiting for adjudication any time soon.
so bottomline I would not go empty handed, go with a typed letter. if you need anything esle PM me...
I checked with both pediatrician and Civil surgeon and they both are of the opinion that TST test would not impact a nursing mom.
My attorney told me that my wife needs to get back before her scheduled trip. This would incur huge costs plus it would be difficult to get the seat arrangements. ( We have a twins and we have seats with bassinets for the infants). My father is also travelling with her.
Is it possible to ask 1 month extension for RFE based on the difficulties. I'm EB3 IND PD 2003 and I dont think our I-485 is waiting for adjudication any time soon.
I've scheduled an infopass appointment tomorrow. What are the chances of getting an extension when I present my case to IO?
I'm worried and it makes us very anxious.
GCisaDawg
Hey, sorry for your situation, I can only imagine, I cant even manage one here..:rolleyes:
pun aside, here is my 2 cents
1) did you talk to your lawyer?
2) if # 1 is ruled out or of no use, I would personally draft a letter showing that she is travellling right now and with kids and it would be extremely difficult to get her TB test done as you cant get it done by that RFE due date. add some more stuff telling your situation as to why she cant come right away due to the stuff you mentioned (kids/babies ). IAm sure you WILL get it exteneded.
you made a good point here - Is it possible to ask 1 month extension for RFE based on the difficulties. I'm EB3 IND PD 2003 and I dont think our I-485 is waiting for adjudication any time soon.
so bottomline I would not go empty handed, go with a typed letter. if you need anything esle PM me...
more...
makeup Muchas personas buscan el amor
xela
12-23 10:47 AM
I hope this will make them see that something needs to happen ;-)
merry christmas and to the ones not celebrating christmas happy time off work ;-)
merry christmas and to the ones not celebrating christmas happy time off work ;-)
girlfriend tattoo del amor de Dios para
reddymjm
09-24 08:59 AM
The best way to respond this kind of people is to ignore them....
If you are successful, certain people will complain and make up stories how you became successful.
If you fail, the same people will makeup stories how dumb you are etc...
The best way, in my opinion, is to ignore these fools.
Those who are writing negative about IV and their leaders, do not have slightest idea on how much sacrifices they have made (family time, financially, physically, mentally etc) so that most of us could be benefited out of it. If these people think they are not benefited or does not like the idea, please don't read those post or just ignore them and move on, go to the posts that you would be benefited from and logout, I personally would like these people to share their experience and answer questions by others with their best of their knowledge, but if you can’t do that, please don't demoralize others.
And yes, I don't care about RED dots, so bring them on.
GCCOvet
Well said Sanju and gccovet. I liked the vedios too Sanju.
If you are successful, certain people will complain and make up stories how you became successful.
If you fail, the same people will makeup stories how dumb you are etc...
The best way, in my opinion, is to ignore these fools.
Those who are writing negative about IV and their leaders, do not have slightest idea on how much sacrifices they have made (family time, financially, physically, mentally etc) so that most of us could be benefited out of it. If these people think they are not benefited or does not like the idea, please don't read those post or just ignore them and move on, go to the posts that you would be benefited from and logout, I personally would like these people to share their experience and answer questions by others with their best of their knowledge, but if you can’t do that, please don't demoralize others.
And yes, I don't care about RED dots, so bring them on.
GCCOvet
Well said Sanju and gccovet. I liked the vedios too Sanju.
hairstyles dixon por el amor de dios
Maverick1
11-09 04:12 PM
EAD & AP is luxury & aggressive. Keeping H1B active is being conservative and playing with probability and backup. It depends on your nature. Go for it!!
If you are planning on a big investment like buying a home or something like that. It is better to stay on H1B so you have a backup if something goes wrong with GC.
I have seen problems with cases using AC21 when they apply it asking for more details and also sometimes ur I-140 is revoked by your sponsoring employer and USCIS may trigger a NOID for you. Ofcoourse you can file MTR and prove that them that it is legitimate to change jobs using AC21, but if you have H1B also then you have a piece of mind.
Also for the first job change use AC21 and do H1B transfer also and see for 6 months so that USCIS is already aware that you ve changed company. You can address any RFE/NOID. But later on you are on ur own.
Okay I like the reply.
Big investments like house is another point to consider. Right. It is not easy to sell off your house and leave in case AOS is rejected.
I know it goes without saying that it is individual's choice whether to keep H1 or EAD/AP. As I said I want to know what Keeping H1 brings to the table.
If you are planning on a big investment like buying a home or something like that. It is better to stay on H1B so you have a backup if something goes wrong with GC.
I have seen problems with cases using AC21 when they apply it asking for more details and also sometimes ur I-140 is revoked by your sponsoring employer and USCIS may trigger a NOID for you. Ofcoourse you can file MTR and prove that them that it is legitimate to change jobs using AC21, but if you have H1B also then you have a piece of mind.
Also for the first job change use AC21 and do H1B transfer also and see for 6 months so that USCIS is already aware that you ve changed company. You can address any RFE/NOID. But later on you are on ur own.
Okay I like the reply.
Big investments like house is another point to consider. Right. It is not easy to sell off your house and leave in case AOS is rejected.
I know it goes without saying that it is individual's choice whether to keep H1 or EAD/AP. As I said I want to know what Keeping H1 brings to the table.
dealsnet
06-12 11:32 PM
Democratic party is not officially announced its candidate. They will announce in their convention. Do you know that ???.
Sen. Clinton just pause her campaign, not disbanded till now (for your info- read New York Times).
Party nomination not brings strong standing in the party. Where is John Kerry now?. All depends on their family connections and influential supporters.
What are you talking? which part of the world do you belong? Obama is the democratic candidat for 2008 Presidential Elections Its conformed.He is not still fighting and also he how can you justify that he is a weak person? do you know he was no where in the picture and no one expected he will won the nomination when the Democratic Primary was begun..now he is the democratic PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE..by now you should have undestand how powerful he is.
Sen. Clinton just pause her campaign, not disbanded till now (for your info- read New York Times).
Party nomination not brings strong standing in the party. Where is John Kerry now?. All depends on their family connections and influential supporters.
What are you talking? which part of the world do you belong? Obama is the democratic candidat for 2008 Presidential Elections Its conformed.He is not still fighting and also he how can you justify that he is a weak person? do you know he was no where in the picture and no one expected he will won the nomination when the Democratic Primary was begun..now he is the democratic PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE..by now you should have undestand how powerful he is.
nashim
04-21 10:06 AM
Shana04,
If previous employer revoked the H1B then you see the status as reopen.
If previous employer revoked the H1B then you see the status as reopen.
