waitnwatch
08-05 03:18 PM
If someone is eligible to port to a higher category they will rightfully do so. Your post seems to imply all PD porting is through shady means. Grow up buddy!
You've got me wrong - if folks think they are entitled to EB2 for a particular "FUTURE" job what stops them from getting a "FUTURE" job description to fit EB-1. After all it's all in the "FUTURE"..............
You've got me wrong - if folks think they are entitled to EB2 for a particular "FUTURE" job what stops them from getting a "FUTURE" job description to fit EB-1. After all it's all in the "FUTURE"..............
wallpaper Crazy Black Theme amp; Wallpaper
oliTwist
12-24 02:05 PM
How old is the technique of discrediting my links to win the argument. Of course, if I tell you of all the atrocities of Indian army in Kashmir, or punjab, or assam, to you I am a muslim, and my default I hate India. Of course, it wouldn't matter if good old amnesty internationl would raise a red flag against india...
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/thousands-lost-kashmir-mass-graves
wait they have raised a red flag a million times, anybody paying attention, or just shaking head in disbelief?
or you do not want to loose your right to dance on murder of muslims had it not been a country like India where Modis, advanis, uma bhartis can roam freely....
...oh wait, but India also denies any trials against in military in Kashmir, so they can do what they want, and never be challenged in court of law, and amnesty's report goes to garbage, because this is Hindu india, and minorities like Sikhs, Bodos, muslims, dalits, dravidians will have to put up with their hegemony...
... and yes, if somebody losses his mind because his home has been bulldozed by indian army, or women raped and murdered ... he will be branded terrorist and shot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6074994.stm
... but of course this is a rambling of muslim, and all muslims are terrorists, and all hindus are protector of bharat mata, so when a hindu kills a muslim, he kills a terrorist, but if a muslim rebels in lack of justice and equality, he is a terrorist.... it's a fair game!
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!
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/thousands-lost-kashmir-mass-graves
wait they have raised a red flag a million times, anybody paying attention, or just shaking head in disbelief?
or you do not want to loose your right to dance on murder of muslims had it not been a country like India where Modis, advanis, uma bhartis can roam freely....
...oh wait, but India also denies any trials against in military in Kashmir, so they can do what they want, and never be challenged in court of law, and amnesty's report goes to garbage, because this is Hindu india, and minorities like Sikhs, Bodos, muslims, dalits, dravidians will have to put up with their hegemony...
... and yes, if somebody losses his mind because his home has been bulldozed by indian army, or women raped and murdered ... he will be branded terrorist and shot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6074994.stm
... but of course this is a rambling of muslim, and all muslims are terrorists, and all hindus are protector of bharat mata, so when a hindu kills a muslim, he kills a terrorist, but if a muslim rebels in lack of justice and equality, he is a terrorist.... it's a fair game!
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!
my2cents
05-03 07:55 AM
For 330K house, the calculations are probably splitting hairs. If it had already lost value to what the income in your area can support, then it is good time. But if it is still going down, I would rather buy a house at the bottom even if the interest rate gets higher. I can sell the house immediately without loss, if I have too.
You think buying and selling a home a joke. You look on an average for 3-5 month to buy a home and one fine day u woke up and interest rate is high u plan to sell. This may be even possible only when u have bought house for pure investment.
Once you move to ur first house with ur family. you will not sell ur house until u r forced to because of job/other extreme factors.
Location is most important that any thing. It is very very localized. do u think manhattan house price went down..in fact it went up. Similarly DC metro area is relatively stronger compare to mid west.
A bit of luck is always there in every single thing. Predicting bottom/peak is always challenge.
One funny thing..people are planning how to sell before they even look for house to buy. lol..
You think buying and selling a home a joke. You look on an average for 3-5 month to buy a home and one fine day u woke up and interest rate is high u plan to sell. This may be even possible only when u have bought house for pure investment.
Once you move to ur first house with ur family. you will not sell ur house until u r forced to because of job/other extreme factors.
Location is most important that any thing. It is very very localized. do u think manhattan house price went down..in fact it went up. Similarly DC metro area is relatively stronger compare to mid west.
A bit of luck is always there in every single thing. Predicting bottom/peak is always challenge.
One funny thing..people are planning how to sell before they even look for house to buy. lol..
2011 Crazy Black Theme amp; Wallpaper
Ahimsa
02-25 06:34 PM
Of late, people started giving 5 star rating for Lou on RateItAll.
Please go to this site and rate him as you like.
http://www.rateitall.com/i-29533-lou-dobbs.aspx
I gave him a lowest single-star rating (terrible)
Please go to this site and rate him as you like.
http://www.rateitall.com/i-29533-lou-dobbs.aspx
I gave him a lowest single-star rating (terrible)
more...
Better_Days
12-28 03:28 AM
Since more than a few hours have past since this thread was started, I can think that we can sleep in peace knowing that there won't be a war.
Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.
Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.
Pak has nukes, but their delivery mechanism is not sound and before Pak launches any nukes, US will disarm them and even if a few are launched India had a very good anti missile shield which will intercept and destroy all warheads before it enters Indian air.
What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.
War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.
Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.
Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.
Pak has nukes, but their delivery mechanism is not sound and before Pak launches any nukes, US will disarm them and even if a few are launched India had a very good anti missile shield which will intercept and destroy all warheads before it enters Indian air.
What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.
War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.
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...
jkays94
05-24 02:31 PM
I don't have the time to go one by one, but one of the arguments about "Zogby poll taken by anti-immigration" groups is at minimum comic. How about other polls posted along the years which show the obvious and logic, which is the American people (not employers of course) support lower immigration numbers ? Anyone surprised by that ?
There are over 50 different instances referencing Lou Dobbs. He misleads and misdirects and he will flip flop when he is caught between a rock and a hard place on his wild claims. CNN by extension is fast establishing itself as an anti-immigrant media house for purposes of ratings, on which is it fast loosing ground. Their latest hire Glenn Beck (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605100005) only shows that promoting such an agenda seems to save CNN's ratings from plunging to the bottom :
MON., MAY 22, 2006 VIEWERS
FNC O'REILLY 2,105,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,666,000
FNC GRETA 1,494,000
FNC HUME 1,341,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,215,000
CNN KING 885,000
CNN DOBBS 702,000
CNN BLITZER 592,000
CNN COOPER 590,000
CNN ZAHN 527,000
CNNHN GRACE 487,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 471,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 406,000
There are over 50 different instances referencing Lou Dobbs. He misleads and misdirects and he will flip flop when he is caught between a rock and a hard place on his wild claims. CNN by extension is fast establishing itself as an anti-immigrant media house for purposes of ratings, on which is it fast loosing ground. Their latest hire Glenn Beck (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605100005) only shows that promoting such an agenda seems to save CNN's ratings from plunging to the bottom :
MON., MAY 22, 2006 VIEWERS
FNC O'REILLY 2,105,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,666,000
FNC GRETA 1,494,000
FNC HUME 1,341,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,215,000
CNN KING 885,000
CNN DOBBS 702,000
CNN BLITZER 592,000
CNN COOPER 590,000
CNN ZAHN 527,000
CNNHN GRACE 487,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 471,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 406,000
2010 a lack vista wallpaper
new_phd
08-10 01:58 PM
Sorry to post in this thread, but I was wondering if United Nations would be kind enough to answer two questions for me (well, actually one is from my colleague). They are kind of generic so it might help other people too, I hope. I posted this on other threads but I havent gotten any responses for the longest time, so Im posting here. Very sorry to those who are following this thread for the original topic.
1) From my colleague: As per his family customs, his mothers FIRST name was also changed after marriage. Before marriage she was Vimla Patil, and now she is Anasuya Deshpande. She uses her married first name and last name on her passport, childrens birth certificate, etc. Only her school leaving has her maiden first name, maiden last name.
He was wondering how to put this info on his I-485/G-325a form. They ask for Mothers Maiden name in one column, and then first name in the next. If he puts down Patil and then Anasuya - it wont be correct as such a person doesnt exist. What is the best way to represent her name. (remember, the birth cert that he will be submitting for himself will have her name as Anasuya Deshpande)
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
2) My question (and this has been asked before, but no one has a rock solid answer). My husband's labor has been approved, approved I-140, his priority date is Oct 2006. I received a labor sub (please dont scream at me.. I dint have anything to do with the matching... it just came my way:o) , but pending I-140, my priority date (if I-140 is approved) will be Feb 2005.
I wanted to know if we should only choose one of these two applications to proceed further or file two I-485 applications- One with me as primary and him as beneficiary, and the other with him as primary. There are these rare postings where people have said that USCIS can reject both applications/ drop both or deny one initially itself, or ask you to choose one upfront. No one has talked about successful multiple filings, so we dont have unbiased statistics in this space. What is your thought on this issue? Which way would you recommend we proceed? Frankly, I am nervous about my application until the I-140 clears, (and my I-140 was only applied in July 2007) ... yet my husbands pd is almost 20 months after mine. Please enlighten.
Thanks!
FYI, both of us have been in the U.S since 2000, but for various strokes of timely bad luck we couldnt file until Dec 2006, So I hope there arent too many hard feelings from people who have also waited as long as we have. I know the feeling.
1) From my colleague: As per his family customs, his mothers FIRST name was also changed after marriage. Before marriage she was Vimla Patil, and now she is Anasuya Deshpande. She uses her married first name and last name on her passport, childrens birth certificate, etc. Only her school leaving has her maiden first name, maiden last name.
He was wondering how to put this info on his I-485/G-325a form. They ask for Mothers Maiden name in one column, and then first name in the next. If he puts down Patil and then Anasuya - it wont be correct as such a person doesnt exist. What is the best way to represent her name. (remember, the birth cert that he will be submitting for himself will have her name as Anasuya Deshpande)
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
2) My question (and this has been asked before, but no one has a rock solid answer). My husband's labor has been approved, approved I-140, his priority date is Oct 2006. I received a labor sub (please dont scream at me.. I dint have anything to do with the matching... it just came my way:o) , but pending I-140, my priority date (if I-140 is approved) will be Feb 2005.
I wanted to know if we should only choose one of these two applications to proceed further or file two I-485 applications- One with me as primary and him as beneficiary, and the other with him as primary. There are these rare postings where people have said that USCIS can reject both applications/ drop both or deny one initially itself, or ask you to choose one upfront. No one has talked about successful multiple filings, so we dont have unbiased statistics in this space. What is your thought on this issue? Which way would you recommend we proceed? Frankly, I am nervous about my application until the I-140 clears, (and my I-140 was only applied in July 2007) ... yet my husbands pd is almost 20 months after mine. Please enlighten.
Thanks!
FYI, both of us have been in the U.S since 2000, but for various strokes of timely bad luck we couldnt file until Dec 2006, So I hope there arent too many hard feelings from people who have also waited as long as we have. I know the feeling.
more...
waitnwatch
05-24 12:17 PM
Did the brownback amendment pass with the CIR?
Please spend some time on this website....browse around, get acquainted, find the right threads and you will automatically find your answers. There is no 1800 number to call for assistance here............
Please spend some time on this website....browse around, get acquainted, find the right threads and you will automatically find your answers. There is no 1800 number to call for assistance here............
hair lack wallpaper
Macaca
03-06 09:00 PM
A Peek Into Corporate America (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501370.html)
Not waiting for Congress to impose new disclosure laws, shareholder activists have persuaded some of the nation's largest companies to disclose their political spending on such things as issue campaigns. General Electric, Hewlett-Packard and American Electric Power recently agreed to report how much they give trade associations for politics and lobbying. Home Depot said it would report "soft money" gifts such as corporate donations to political advocacy groups.
The decision was announced by the Center for Political Accountability, Trillium Asset Management and Green Century Capital Management. The four companies join 15 other major corporations that have adopted increased transparency policies since 2005.
Separately, Aegon USA, a financial services firm, has begun to list on its campaign finance reports the events at which it gives money to politicians, a disclosure not required by law. It said its $5,000 donation to the leadership fund of Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) was made during a "ski weekend." Anyone see a trend?
Not waiting for Congress to impose new disclosure laws, shareholder activists have persuaded some of the nation's largest companies to disclose their political spending on such things as issue campaigns. General Electric, Hewlett-Packard and American Electric Power recently agreed to report how much they give trade associations for politics and lobbying. Home Depot said it would report "soft money" gifts such as corporate donations to political advocacy groups.
The decision was announced by the Center for Political Accountability, Trillium Asset Management and Green Century Capital Management. The four companies join 15 other major corporations that have adopted increased transparency policies since 2005.
Separately, Aegon USA, a financial services firm, has begun to list on its campaign finance reports the events at which it gives money to politicians, a disclosure not required by law. It said its $5,000 donation to the leadership fund of Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) was made during a "ski weekend." Anyone see a trend?
more...
coopheal
07-15 07:16 AM
I would like to first applaud Pani for this effort. I strongly support his initative. I think his letter is original and from his heart. It is more authentic and human than what some on this forum are suggesting here. I think his gut feeling on this one is more important than the calculated steps IV has been taking so far.
These kind of authentic letters from members like pani would give IV a more strong foundation to focus their energy. I think all those who want to write letters to the President, Senator, Congressmen, USCIS, DOL, DOS, DOJ, etc should do so and also should write the letter on their own instead of copying one. The reasons, sentiments and purpose will add more flavour to the whole thing. I would go one step further to suggest that some should write the letter in Spanish, French, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, etc, etc, if they think that they can express themselves better in their own language.
Pani once again I would like to say that you are doing the right thing.
PS: When the ship is sinking everyone wants to escape but the one who is aggresive to save himself has more chance of living than the other who is waiting for someone to save him.
Best luck for this.
Hope you have been contributing in past and continue to contribute in IV efforts. If havent think why you didnt yet.
These kind of authentic letters from members like pani would give IV a more strong foundation to focus their energy. I think all those who want to write letters to the President, Senator, Congressmen, USCIS, DOL, DOS, DOJ, etc should do so and also should write the letter on their own instead of copying one. The reasons, sentiments and purpose will add more flavour to the whole thing. I would go one step further to suggest that some should write the letter in Spanish, French, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, etc, etc, if they think that they can express themselves better in their own language.
Pani once again I would like to say that you are doing the right thing.
PS: When the ship is sinking everyone wants to escape but the one who is aggresive to save himself has more chance of living than the other who is waiting for someone to save him.
Best luck for this.
Hope you have been contributing in past and continue to contribute in IV efforts. If havent think why you didnt yet.
hot Black Beauty XP WindowBlinds
CT_Green
02-02 01:42 PM
We can atleast send an email to CNN and let them know that they should be ashamed of themselves by alowing someone to go on air and use it as a platform to spread his own views and then call it independent reporting.
I have sent an email via CNN.com
I know it might not make much of a difference, but atleast they should know that he is not reporting on facts.
I have sent an email via CNN.com
I know it might not make much of a difference, but atleast they should know that he is not reporting on facts.
more...
house lack wallpaper themes.
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
tattoo lack wallpaper themes.
unitednations
08-02 12:29 PM
245(i)/245(K) covers only upto 180 days(6 months) of out of status , the possible OOS issues are
1.Overstay of I-94 card's date
2.Unauthorized employment
3.Staying without payslips (with some exceptions like Maternity,paternity,sick)
http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html click here for more info.
USCIS will issue RFE/NOID and ask for explaination OR deny I-485 , I am wondering where this $1000 concept came from?? Correct me if I am wrong
245k and 245i are two different things.
245i was sort of an amnesty. If person overstay their i-94 cards for any length of time they can still adjust status to lawful permanent resident as long as they pay the $1,000 penalty.
Main criteria of 245i is that you had to have an immigrant petition (i-130) or a labor cert filed on behalf of you before April 30, 2001. If you meet this criteria then overstaying or being out of status doesn't matter. However; even if you were eligible for 245i and you had overstayed by more then six months and you left the country then you wouldn't be allowed back in and if they somehow allowed you back in; you wouldn't be able to adjust status because the 3/10 year bars kick in.
1.Overstay of I-94 card's date
2.Unauthorized employment
3.Staying without payslips (with some exceptions like Maternity,paternity,sick)
http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html click here for more info.
USCIS will issue RFE/NOID and ask for explaination OR deny I-485 , I am wondering where this $1000 concept came from?? Correct me if I am wrong
245k and 245i are two different things.
245i was sort of an amnesty. If person overstay their i-94 cards for any length of time they can still adjust status to lawful permanent resident as long as they pay the $1,000 penalty.
Main criteria of 245i is that you had to have an immigrant petition (i-130) or a labor cert filed on behalf of you before April 30, 2001. If you meet this criteria then overstaying or being out of status doesn't matter. However; even if you were eligible for 245i and you had overstayed by more then six months and you left the country then you wouldn't be allowed back in and if they somehow allowed you back in; you wouldn't be able to adjust status because the 3/10 year bars kick in.
more...
pictures dresses wallpaper images nokia
Hitech-coolie
07-09 01:47 AM
Hi Guys
I am new to this forum and portal too.
Do INS ask about previous salary stubs for i-485?
Do they check all the paystubs till the time you subitted your application?
Please educate me on this.
Regards
Hitech-coolie
I am new to this forum and portal too.
Do INS ask about previous salary stubs for i-485?
Do they check all the paystubs till the time you subitted your application?
Please educate me on this.
Regards
Hitech-coolie
dresses man wallpaper theme for
nojoke
01-03 04:22 PM
Listen to this, The US attacked Iraq and that accomplished exactly what the terrorists want. Terrorists want to see chaos and disruption. I believe the US is losing the war on terror and the results from the failed Iraq invasion can get worse, since that may have generated one dozen Jihad style attackers to be unveiled in 5-20 years from now.
India should not attack Pak and spend tons of money like the US did. Instead, invest all that money in secret services and let them penetrate the enemy line. Let the secret service perform a detailed investigation of sources, then apply snipers or other ways to take perpetrators down.
The last thing we need now with this dreadful economy is another war. Palestinians are already starting the whole fire again. We do not need one more war.
Wrong. First iraq war is not war against terrorist.
Second, pakistan already is doing Jihad against India. They don't need a reason to start a Jihad. Their obsession to destroy India is so much poisoned in their blood and they really don't need a reason for the Jihad.
Third- It is easy only in movies to use snipers to take down these men. Plus there are thousands and it is virtually impossible.
I agree that war is a tough choice and probably our politicians use the drum beat to get votes. And probably there won't be a war. But some of the rationalizations give here in this forum is funny.
India should not attack Pak and spend tons of money like the US did. Instead, invest all that money in secret services and let them penetrate the enemy line. Let the secret service perform a detailed investigation of sources, then apply snipers or other ways to take perpetrators down.
The last thing we need now with this dreadful economy is another war. Palestinians are already starting the whole fire again. We do not need one more war.
Wrong. First iraq war is not war against terrorist.
Second, pakistan already is doing Jihad against India. They don't need a reason to start a Jihad. Their obsession to destroy India is so much poisoned in their blood and they really don't need a reason for the Jihad.
Third- It is easy only in movies to use snipers to take down these men. Plus there are thousands and it is virtually impossible.
I agree that war is a tough choice and probably our politicians use the drum beat to get votes. And probably there won't be a war. But some of the rationalizations give here in this forum is funny.
more...
makeup Black and White Theme with
Macaca
05-13 05:42 PM
What if you had to buy American? (http://money.msn.com/how-to-budget/what-if-you-had-to-buy-american.aspx) By Katherine Reynolds Lewis | MSN Money
Legions of patriotic Americans look for "made in USA" stickers before buying products, out of a desire to support the country's economy.
But what if we all were restricted to purchasing only those goods that were made in America?
Our homes would be stripped virtually bare of telephones, televisions, toasters and other electronics, and many of our favorite foods and toys would be gone, too. Say goodbye to your coffee or tea, and forget about slicing bananas into your breakfast cereal -- all three would become prohibitively expensive if we relied on only Hawaii to grow tropical crops.
We'd have to trash our beloved Apple products because the iPod, iPad and MacBook aren't made in the U.S. Gasoline would double or triple in price, given that we now import more than 60% of our oil. And you couldn't propose to your true love with a diamond ring: There are no working diamond mines in the U.S.
Moreover, a complete end to imports would actually hurt the U.S. economy, because consumers and domestic companies would lose access to cheap goods. Trade protections, whether through tariffs or quotas, cost the economy roughly $2 for every $1 in additional profit for domestic producers, said Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
"If we restricted trade to just the 50 states, what would happen immediately -- and would increase over time -- would be a huge reduction in our standard of living, because we wouldn't have access to the cheap goods we get from other countries," Perry said. "We also wouldn't have any export markets, so companies like Caterpillar and Microsoft would have a huge reduction in sales and workforce."
So what do we make of heartfelt pleas to save U.S. manufacturing by buying American, or the many websites (see one here) that catalog U.S. sources for an array of products? Or the Buy American Act, which curbs government purchases of products that are made overseas?
Do such efforts actually hurt the country they're trying to help?
The argument for buying American
Marc Kruskol, 53, a publicist based in Palmdale, Calif., goes out of his way to purchase products that are made in the U.S. because of his concern over the decline in manufacturing employment.
"I truly believe that we could go a long way towards fixing the economy if we would just put people to work making things in this country that are made in other places," said Kruskol, who spends hours scouring made-in-America websites or visiting brick-and-mortar stores in search of U.S. products.
He recently spent $10 on a pair of salad tongs made in America, which he tracked down in a restaurant supply store, after rejecting 99-cent foreign-made tongs. And he was happy to spend $650 on a domestically produced barbecue grill rather than a $450 imported one, just to support his countrymen.
But financial experts say that it's best for America if you buy the cheapest product you can find without sacrificing quality. Their explanation rests on the concept of efficient manufacturing. An efficient producer creates the most valuable goods with the least possible expense, selling those items at lower prices than competitors who are less efficient. A country benefits when its manufacturers become more efficient.
When you spend more on an equivalent product simply because it's made in the U.S., you're wasting your money -- and supporting an inefficient manufacturer that, by rights, should become more efficient or go out of business. Moreover, the additional $9.01 or $200 that Kruskol had spent on an inefficient U.S. producer could have been spent on something else, helping the economy further. Or it could have stayed in his savings account and been funneled by his bank into the financial system, which in theory allocates capital to the most efficient producers.
"He gave effectively $9 to an inefficient producer to motivate them to keep producing inefficiently," said Ken Fisher, the founder and CEO of Fisher Investments in Woodside, Calif., and the author of "Debunkery." "I understand the well-intentioned view. Doing that would be terrible for America."
The most efficient producers are best-positioned to create more jobs and return profits to their investors, and to the government in the form of tax revenue. "We make the country better by allocating resources towards the ones that can use them best," Fisher said.
The complex manufacturing question
At the heart of the issue are the interconnected global economy and the changes in the manufacturing sector.
There's no question that U.S. manufacturers employ far fewer people now -- about 11.7 million in April -- than when the sector peaked at 19.6 million workers in 1979. But the decline in jobs is largely due to technological advances that have reduced the number of workers needed to run factories, Perry and Fisher pointed out. The average worker today is responsible for $180,000 of manufacturing output, triple the inflation-adjusted $60,000 of 1972, Perry said.
Despite that increase in productivity, a March report by IHS Global Insight put China's manufacturing output ahead of the U.S. for the first time ever, at $2 trillion in 2010, compared with $1.95 trillion for the U.S. That's up from $1.69 trillion for China and $1.733 trillion for the U.S. in 2009, based on U.S. and Chinese government data.
But Perry argued that exchange-rate fluctuations and differences in data sources caused the IHS Global report to skew the comparison between the U.S. and China. Based on U.N. data for 2009, the most recent available, the United States' manufacturing output was 14% ahead of China's, he said.
Moreover, as manufacturing has declined as a share of the U.S. economy while the service sector has grown, most of the world has followed the same trend. The proportion has held steady in China.
"We've left the Machine Age, and we're in a new Information Age. It makes sense that manufacturing would be less important," Perry said, noting that as other countries have taken over clothing and other low-end manufacturing, the U.S. has become more competitive in producing pharmaceuticals, software, aerospace technology, industrial machinery and medical equipment. "We're still world leaders and at the cutting edge of those higher-skilled, higher-valued-added areas."
Not convinced yet? The other conundrum in trying to buy only U.S.-made products lies in what that really means.
Do you accept products that are assembled in America but contain components from all over the globe? For example, U.S. companies in February imported $58 billion worth of industrial supplies, such as petroleum and plastics, and $40 billion in capital goods, from computers to engines and laboratory equipment.
What about products that are assembled in China yet include parts from U.S. suppliers and were designed by American engineers? Every time you purchase such an item, the money will flow back to those American engineers and suppliers.
Cars.com's American-Made Index illustrates U.S. industries' complex trade relationships. The website ranks vehicles built and purchased in the U.S. based on sales, the origin of the cars' parts and whether assembly was in the U.S. The top two cars -- Toyota Camry and Honda Accord -- are produced by Japanese companies through their U.S. subsidiaries.
"On the surface, it seems like it might be plausible to have these 'made in the USA' campaigns," Perry said. "It all gets real tricky in a global economy with parts."
When buying American helps
That's not to say you should ignore the origins of the goods you buy.
When comparing two products of equivalent price and quality, feel free to choose the U.S.-made one out of domestic pride. It may make sense to buy a U.S.-made product if the quality or safety is superior.
Alex Kaplan, 41, the owner of Celebrity Laser Spa in Los Angeles, recently bought a pair of ottomans online for $120, only to find them cracked and cheaply made. After returning the made-in-China set, he found a craftsman through Etsy who made similar ottomans for $160 but allowed customers to choose the fabrics.
"It's much more satisfying," said Kaplan, whose blog chronicles his attempts to find products made in the U.S. "The most important thing when it comes to buying American is being aware and asking yourself, 'Where is this made?'"
Is College a Rotten Investment?
Why student loans are not like subprime mortgages. (http://www.slate.com/id/2293766/)
By Annie Lowrey | Slate
Legions of patriotic Americans look for "made in USA" stickers before buying products, out of a desire to support the country's economy.
But what if we all were restricted to purchasing only those goods that were made in America?
Our homes would be stripped virtually bare of telephones, televisions, toasters and other electronics, and many of our favorite foods and toys would be gone, too. Say goodbye to your coffee or tea, and forget about slicing bananas into your breakfast cereal -- all three would become prohibitively expensive if we relied on only Hawaii to grow tropical crops.
We'd have to trash our beloved Apple products because the iPod, iPad and MacBook aren't made in the U.S. Gasoline would double or triple in price, given that we now import more than 60% of our oil. And you couldn't propose to your true love with a diamond ring: There are no working diamond mines in the U.S.
Moreover, a complete end to imports would actually hurt the U.S. economy, because consumers and domestic companies would lose access to cheap goods. Trade protections, whether through tariffs or quotas, cost the economy roughly $2 for every $1 in additional profit for domestic producers, said Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
"If we restricted trade to just the 50 states, what would happen immediately -- and would increase over time -- would be a huge reduction in our standard of living, because we wouldn't have access to the cheap goods we get from other countries," Perry said. "We also wouldn't have any export markets, so companies like Caterpillar and Microsoft would have a huge reduction in sales and workforce."
So what do we make of heartfelt pleas to save U.S. manufacturing by buying American, or the many websites (see one here) that catalog U.S. sources for an array of products? Or the Buy American Act, which curbs government purchases of products that are made overseas?
Do such efforts actually hurt the country they're trying to help?
The argument for buying American
Marc Kruskol, 53, a publicist based in Palmdale, Calif., goes out of his way to purchase products that are made in the U.S. because of his concern over the decline in manufacturing employment.
"I truly believe that we could go a long way towards fixing the economy if we would just put people to work making things in this country that are made in other places," said Kruskol, who spends hours scouring made-in-America websites or visiting brick-and-mortar stores in search of U.S. products.
He recently spent $10 on a pair of salad tongs made in America, which he tracked down in a restaurant supply store, after rejecting 99-cent foreign-made tongs. And he was happy to spend $650 on a domestically produced barbecue grill rather than a $450 imported one, just to support his countrymen.
But financial experts say that it's best for America if you buy the cheapest product you can find without sacrificing quality. Their explanation rests on the concept of efficient manufacturing. An efficient producer creates the most valuable goods with the least possible expense, selling those items at lower prices than competitors who are less efficient. A country benefits when its manufacturers become more efficient.
When you spend more on an equivalent product simply because it's made in the U.S., you're wasting your money -- and supporting an inefficient manufacturer that, by rights, should become more efficient or go out of business. Moreover, the additional $9.01 or $200 that Kruskol had spent on an inefficient U.S. producer could have been spent on something else, helping the economy further. Or it could have stayed in his savings account and been funneled by his bank into the financial system, which in theory allocates capital to the most efficient producers.
"He gave effectively $9 to an inefficient producer to motivate them to keep producing inefficiently," said Ken Fisher, the founder and CEO of Fisher Investments in Woodside, Calif., and the author of "Debunkery." "I understand the well-intentioned view. Doing that would be terrible for America."
The most efficient producers are best-positioned to create more jobs and return profits to their investors, and to the government in the form of tax revenue. "We make the country better by allocating resources towards the ones that can use them best," Fisher said.
The complex manufacturing question
At the heart of the issue are the interconnected global economy and the changes in the manufacturing sector.
There's no question that U.S. manufacturers employ far fewer people now -- about 11.7 million in April -- than when the sector peaked at 19.6 million workers in 1979. But the decline in jobs is largely due to technological advances that have reduced the number of workers needed to run factories, Perry and Fisher pointed out. The average worker today is responsible for $180,000 of manufacturing output, triple the inflation-adjusted $60,000 of 1972, Perry said.
Despite that increase in productivity, a March report by IHS Global Insight put China's manufacturing output ahead of the U.S. for the first time ever, at $2 trillion in 2010, compared with $1.95 trillion for the U.S. That's up from $1.69 trillion for China and $1.733 trillion for the U.S. in 2009, based on U.S. and Chinese government data.
But Perry argued that exchange-rate fluctuations and differences in data sources caused the IHS Global report to skew the comparison between the U.S. and China. Based on U.N. data for 2009, the most recent available, the United States' manufacturing output was 14% ahead of China's, he said.
Moreover, as manufacturing has declined as a share of the U.S. economy while the service sector has grown, most of the world has followed the same trend. The proportion has held steady in China.
"We've left the Machine Age, and we're in a new Information Age. It makes sense that manufacturing would be less important," Perry said, noting that as other countries have taken over clothing and other low-end manufacturing, the U.S. has become more competitive in producing pharmaceuticals, software, aerospace technology, industrial machinery and medical equipment. "We're still world leaders and at the cutting edge of those higher-skilled, higher-valued-added areas."
Not convinced yet? The other conundrum in trying to buy only U.S.-made products lies in what that really means.
Do you accept products that are assembled in America but contain components from all over the globe? For example, U.S. companies in February imported $58 billion worth of industrial supplies, such as petroleum and plastics, and $40 billion in capital goods, from computers to engines and laboratory equipment.
What about products that are assembled in China yet include parts from U.S. suppliers and were designed by American engineers? Every time you purchase such an item, the money will flow back to those American engineers and suppliers.
Cars.com's American-Made Index illustrates U.S. industries' complex trade relationships. The website ranks vehicles built and purchased in the U.S. based on sales, the origin of the cars' parts and whether assembly was in the U.S. The top two cars -- Toyota Camry and Honda Accord -- are produced by Japanese companies through their U.S. subsidiaries.
"On the surface, it seems like it might be plausible to have these 'made in the USA' campaigns," Perry said. "It all gets real tricky in a global economy with parts."
When buying American helps
That's not to say you should ignore the origins of the goods you buy.
When comparing two products of equivalent price and quality, feel free to choose the U.S.-made one out of domestic pride. It may make sense to buy a U.S.-made product if the quality or safety is superior.
Alex Kaplan, 41, the owner of Celebrity Laser Spa in Los Angeles, recently bought a pair of ottomans online for $120, only to find them cracked and cheaply made. After returning the made-in-China set, he found a craftsman through Etsy who made similar ottomans for $160 but allowed customers to choose the fabrics.
"It's much more satisfying," said Kaplan, whose blog chronicles his attempts to find products made in the U.S. "The most important thing when it comes to buying American is being aware and asking yourself, 'Where is this made?'"
Is College a Rotten Investment?
Why student loans are not like subprime mortgages. (http://www.slate.com/id/2293766/)
By Annie Lowrey | Slate
girlfriend lack wallpaper themes.
vivaforever
08-09 11:29 AM
An immigration related - Not sure if it is posted yet !
In a poor zoo of India , a lion was frustrated as he was offered not
More than 1 kg of meat a day.
The lion thought its prayers were answered. When one day a Dubai Zoo
Manager visited the zoo and requested the zoo management to shift the
lion to Dubai Zoo.
The lion was so happy and started thinking of a central A/C environment, a
goat or two every day.
On its first day after arrival, the lion was offered a big bag, sealed
very nicely for breakfast. The lion opened it quickly but was shocked to
see that it contained few bananas. The lion thought that may be they cared
too much for him as they were worried about his stomach as he had recently
shifted from India .
The next day the same thing happened. On the third day again the same
foodbag of bananas was delivered.
The lion was so furious; it stopped the delivery boy and blasted at
him,'don't you know I am the lion...king of the Jungle..., what's wrong
with your management? What nonsense is this? Why are you delivering bananas
to me?*
The delivery boy politely said, 'Sir, I know you are the king of the
jungle ... but... you have been brought here on a monkey's visa !!!
Moral of the Story....Better to be a Lion in your own country than a
Monkey elsewhere.
In a poor zoo of India , a lion was frustrated as he was offered not
More than 1 kg of meat a day.
The lion thought its prayers were answered. When one day a Dubai Zoo
Manager visited the zoo and requested the zoo management to shift the
lion to Dubai Zoo.
The lion was so happy and started thinking of a central A/C environment, a
goat or two every day.
On its first day after arrival, the lion was offered a big bag, sealed
very nicely for breakfast. The lion opened it quickly but was shocked to
see that it contained few bananas. The lion thought that may be they cared
too much for him as they were worried about his stomach as he had recently
shifted from India .
The next day the same thing happened. On the third day again the same
foodbag of bananas was delivered.
The lion was so furious; it stopped the delivery boy and blasted at
him,'don't you know I am the lion...king of the Jungle..., what's wrong
with your management? What nonsense is this? Why are you delivering bananas
to me?*
The delivery boy politely said, 'Sir, I know you are the king of the
jungle ... but... you have been brought here on a monkey's visa !!!
Moral of the Story....Better to be a Lion in your own country than a
Monkey elsewhere.
hairstyles lack wallpaper themes. art
Administrator2
01-08 03:56 PM
I just copied and pasted the coward Refugee_New's msg to me. I'll be careful about 'quoting others' also!
Did you consider banning him?
CreatedToday,
We have not considered banning you or anyone else. Refugee_New has apologized for sending unfriendly messages.
We work hard to keep the forums civil, without any use of abusive language. We need your help to achieve this goal before we are successful with the bigger challenges ahead of us in 2009.
Thank you for your participation in the community effort.
Administrator2
Did you consider banning him?
CreatedToday,
We have not considered banning you or anyone else. Refugee_New has apologized for sending unfriendly messages.
We work hard to keep the forums civil, without any use of abusive language. We need your help to achieve this goal before we are successful with the bigger challenges ahead of us in 2009.
Thank you for your participation in the community effort.
Administrator2
NeverEndingH1
12-17 03:18 PM
Your anger is justified, but what is your contribution to fix this? created a new IV handle TODAY to talk against a faith? So your other handle where you talk only about immigration will be clean? LOL!
Your are really a brave Indian!
This thread must continue.
It will be a slap to all the pseudo seculars on this forum. What will you do with your stupid greencards if your family back home is in turmoil. You guys just want to close your eyes from the problems facing you and think that by posting immigration realted posts and being politically correct in life you will become nice people. People do not wake up until the tragedy hits them close.
And there is nothing wrong to talk about religion and terror. It is because of not speaking, the rogue forces are now hurting everyone. And f you do not criticize the politicians who divide the country for votes, then if something wrong happens it is your fault because you chose to keep quiet.
I have seen past threads on this topic. First people tried hard to argue. But when they lost arguments and could not accept the truths, they started using abusive language. That showed their true character. These same people are going to try this tactics on this thread too. But this thread should continue.
Everyone has freedom of speech and IV should allow all opinions equally. I will be upset if this thread is closed.
Your are really a brave Indian!
This thread must continue.
It will be a slap to all the pseudo seculars on this forum. What will you do with your stupid greencards if your family back home is in turmoil. You guys just want to close your eyes from the problems facing you and think that by posting immigration realted posts and being politically correct in life you will become nice people. People do not wake up until the tragedy hits them close.
And there is nothing wrong to talk about religion and terror. It is because of not speaking, the rogue forces are now hurting everyone. And f you do not criticize the politicians who divide the country for votes, then if something wrong happens it is your fault because you chose to keep quiet.
I have seen past threads on this topic. First people tried hard to argue. But when they lost arguments and could not accept the truths, they started using abusive language. That showed their true character. These same people are going to try this tactics on this thread too. But this thread should continue.
Everyone has freedom of speech and IV should allow all opinions equally. I will be upset if this thread is closed.
rimzhim
04-09 11:00 AM
Why should others suffer because of consulting firms?
You get a job at company A you work for them. When you move to company B that company does your H1B.. if required again. Why should company A do your H1B than the individual work for somebody else as "consultant". This has been going on for too long affecting everybody especially scientists and doctors and academic community. These consultants are delaying GC for us. The bill takes care of that problem and I think its fair.
Also if the new bill requires repeating labor certification every time we move so be it. You are "best and brightest" correct.. prove it!
Don't want to sound selfish, but I agree 100% on this. Where I am employed as a scientist, the employer took great pains to show that I have not displaced any American worker. In fact they have a whole file with documents that support this fact. If I move, my new employer will do the same. I am not scared of this provision in the H1B bill. If you are really the best, only then you deserve to get the job, and then you have no reason to fear this bill.
You get a job at company A you work for them. When you move to company B that company does your H1B.. if required again. Why should company A do your H1B than the individual work for somebody else as "consultant". This has been going on for too long affecting everybody especially scientists and doctors and academic community. These consultants are delaying GC for us. The bill takes care of that problem and I think its fair.
Also if the new bill requires repeating labor certification every time we move so be it. You are "best and brightest" correct.. prove it!
Don't want to sound selfish, but I agree 100% on this. Where I am employed as a scientist, the employer took great pains to show that I have not displaced any American worker. In fact they have a whole file with documents that support this fact. If I move, my new employer will do the same. I am not scared of this provision in the H1B bill. If you are really the best, only then you deserve to get the job, and then you have no reason to fear this bill.