factoryman
05-01 01:56 PM
I had lot of hopes for skilled immigrants under the democratic majority both in house and senate. They are now slowly waning. As I see it, the democratic party in US (elsewhere except South) is now taken over by union and leftist liberalsl in the South it is hijacked by Blue Dog Democrats. I see no hope.
DailyKos is a liberal activist group, with a LOT of influence on Democrats of all hues. Why, most Senators, Congressmen, Presidential Candidates regulary start threads, discussions etc.
Go there and see that is going on. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/30/95526/3669)
Though the discussion is mostly on H1B, there are few gems on Green Cards. This one particularly caught my mind.
Some Leavening (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:fastwacks
While I don't dispute the overall study, it may not reflect the current market. As someone who places software engineers, I'm finding it hard to find well trained people and companies often reject them before we get to the price negotiation stage. A lot of the people we find are on H1-Bs or have green cards. We are searching in the same pools as everyone else (and with our own sources as well) so it's not like we are selecting by place of origin. So, it looks to me from admittedly annecdotal evidence that there really is a shortage of native talent.
I think a part of this is because the ranks of U.S. engineers were virtually obliterated in the last seven years by the downturn. Many of those people simply left the field. Engineers who were here from India and other countries on H1-Bs got sent home, but they quickly found jobs that were outsourced to their countries. That means that their job skills continued to improve, while people in the U.S. found jobs (if they could) at Mervins and Wal-Mart. They left the Valley in droves.
The result is that it is very difficult to find people with current skills if they have been living in the U.S. And those who would possibly re-enter the market are justifiably gun shy about moving back to Santa Clara County.
This includes a large number of women (and men, for that matter) who decided that the downturn was an opportune moment to stop working and have a baby. It's difficult to cover up a two- or three-year gap in your resume. Companies want to find people with current skills. This is partly related to another, negative, change--the unwillingness of companies to invest in their "human capital." They won't train anyone on their own dime if they can get away with not doing it.
The U.S. needs to jumpstart the local tech worker group by putting some real muscle behind the effort. That means more than job training. We have to fund internships or something that will get these people real job experience on current products.
Oh, and then there's the whole pay scale thing. Would you live in Silicon Valley on $35/hour? If you didn't have a family, then probably no problem. That is to say, if you are here on an H1-B from India, then you'd scramble to get the job. But if you have a non-working partner or more than one child, then you are probably not going to leave Nebraska for the hot lights of Redwood Shores. At least you wouldn't if you had any idea what it costs to live in Redwood City. Start by bringing a couple hundred K to plunk down on your new home--average price somewhere north of a half million.
Think, liberally.
IV should totally change its strategy; drop all activism on the legislative front. Instead, start mass campaings of letter writing to DoS, Employers, Corporations, and Yes, law makers, both Congressmen and Senators.
DailyKos is a liberal activist group, with a LOT of influence on Democrats of all hues. Why, most Senators, Congressmen, Presidential Candidates regulary start threads, discussions etc.
Go there and see that is going on. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/30/95526/3669)
Though the discussion is mostly on H1B, there are few gems on Green Cards. This one particularly caught my mind.
Some Leavening (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:fastwacks
While I don't dispute the overall study, it may not reflect the current market. As someone who places software engineers, I'm finding it hard to find well trained people and companies often reject them before we get to the price negotiation stage. A lot of the people we find are on H1-Bs or have green cards. We are searching in the same pools as everyone else (and with our own sources as well) so it's not like we are selecting by place of origin. So, it looks to me from admittedly annecdotal evidence that there really is a shortage of native talent.
I think a part of this is because the ranks of U.S. engineers were virtually obliterated in the last seven years by the downturn. Many of those people simply left the field. Engineers who were here from India and other countries on H1-Bs got sent home, but they quickly found jobs that were outsourced to their countries. That means that their job skills continued to improve, while people in the U.S. found jobs (if they could) at Mervins and Wal-Mart. They left the Valley in droves.
The result is that it is very difficult to find people with current skills if they have been living in the U.S. And those who would possibly re-enter the market are justifiably gun shy about moving back to Santa Clara County.
This includes a large number of women (and men, for that matter) who decided that the downturn was an opportune moment to stop working and have a baby. It's difficult to cover up a two- or three-year gap in your resume. Companies want to find people with current skills. This is partly related to another, negative, change--the unwillingness of companies to invest in their "human capital." They won't train anyone on their own dime if they can get away with not doing it.
The U.S. needs to jumpstart the local tech worker group by putting some real muscle behind the effort. That means more than job training. We have to fund internships or something that will get these people real job experience on current products.
Oh, and then there's the whole pay scale thing. Would you live in Silicon Valley on $35/hour? If you didn't have a family, then probably no problem. That is to say, if you are here on an H1-B from India, then you'd scramble to get the job. But if you have a non-working partner or more than one child, then you are probably not going to leave Nebraska for the hot lights of Redwood Shores. At least you wouldn't if you had any idea what it costs to live in Redwood City. Start by bringing a couple hundred K to plunk down on your new home--average price somewhere north of a half million.
Think, liberally.
IV should totally change its strategy; drop all activism on the legislative front. Instead, start mass campaings of letter writing to DoS, Employers, Corporations, and Yes, law makers, both Congressmen and Senators.
wallpaper wallpapers windows vista.
Macaca
05-01 08:29 AM
Lobbyists Who Bundle (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043001506.html) -- Their fundraising for congressional candidates should be disclosed, Tuesday, May 1, 2007
THE HOUSE Democratic leadership is to meet this week to determine the content of the lobbying reform package it says is one of its top priorities. The key test of the leadership's seriousness on this issue will be whether the proposal includes a provision to require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of cash they collect for lawmakers' campaigns.
Such a requirement was contained in the Senate lobbying bill passed in January. The head of the House Democrats' campaign committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), sponsored a similar requirement last year and is pushing it again this time around -- despite the crimp it could put in his ability to raise money for his troops. But other influential House members are said to be balking, worried that merely requiring lobbyists to reveal the bundles could reduce the number and size of such donations.
This is, of course, precisely why disclosure is essential. The influence that lobbyists wield can't be gauged by looking at their individual contributions. Their power comes in their capacity to deliver a stack of checks to grateful lawmakers. A lawmaker knows how much he or she is indebted to a lobbyist. So, you can be sure, does the lobbyist. The only ones in the dark are the public.
This provision wouldn't ban bundling, just shine some sunlight on it. It wouldn't apply to all big fundraisers, just ones who make their livings lobbying the legislators for whom they're bringing in the bundles. House Democrats must keep this in mind: They're in power in large part because of the cozy, and in some cases corrupt, relationships their predecessors had with lobbyists. If they want to stay in power, they need to demonstrate that they are willing, finally, to do something about this.
THE HOUSE Democratic leadership is to meet this week to determine the content of the lobbying reform package it says is one of its top priorities. The key test of the leadership's seriousness on this issue will be whether the proposal includes a provision to require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of cash they collect for lawmakers' campaigns.
Such a requirement was contained in the Senate lobbying bill passed in January. The head of the House Democrats' campaign committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), sponsored a similar requirement last year and is pushing it again this time around -- despite the crimp it could put in his ability to raise money for his troops. But other influential House members are said to be balking, worried that merely requiring lobbyists to reveal the bundles could reduce the number and size of such donations.
This is, of course, precisely why disclosure is essential. The influence that lobbyists wield can't be gauged by looking at their individual contributions. Their power comes in their capacity to deliver a stack of checks to grateful lawmakers. A lawmaker knows how much he or she is indebted to a lobbyist. So, you can be sure, does the lobbyist. The only ones in the dark are the public.
This provision wouldn't ban bundling, just shine some sunlight on it. It wouldn't apply to all big fundraisers, just ones who make their livings lobbying the legislators for whom they're bringing in the bundles. House Democrats must keep this in mind: They're in power in large part because of the cozy, and in some cases corrupt, relationships their predecessors had with lobbyists. If they want to stay in power, they need to demonstrate that they are willing, finally, to do something about this.
Macaca
10-14 11:06 AM
Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
2011 windows vista wallpapers
USDream2Dust
06-06 11:55 PM
Whereas i agree with you that you can live good life anywhere, even with no house and no place to live you can live a good life.
But just because your friend got Grilled, shouldn't prevent you from taking risk. It is like, if somebody got run down by bus while crossing street, you would never cross that street.
That is not a good example. Like I said. everybody takes chances, some win and some don't.
Chances of loosing right now, is very slim, since everything is lost and if you still have a good healthy job, chances are you would have it, and if you have backup like double income, you are running in no probability zone.
After your i485 gets denied, I am assuming you can file MTR and wait for it. More senior members may throw light but I am guessing you would have 2-3 months time to leave the country.
On a complete side note, who gives a damn of overstaying if your GC is denied after 10 years of legal staying in US. Stay another year or so and setlle down stuff before you go home. Even better, stay as illegal in this country and join millions other, and chances are that you would get GC before other IV members :).
The above is not my theory but a very well known attorney in NYC told me and my wife, when my wife was little bit out of status. Strange but true.
But just because your friend got Grilled, shouldn't prevent you from taking risk. It is like, if somebody got run down by bus while crossing street, you would never cross that street.
That is not a good example. Like I said. everybody takes chances, some win and some don't.
Chances of loosing right now, is very slim, since everything is lost and if you still have a good healthy job, chances are you would have it, and if you have backup like double income, you are running in no probability zone.
After your i485 gets denied, I am assuming you can file MTR and wait for it. More senior members may throw light but I am guessing you would have 2-3 months time to leave the country.
On a complete side note, who gives a damn of overstaying if your GC is denied after 10 years of legal staying in US. Stay another year or so and setlle down stuff before you go home. Even better, stay as illegal in this country and join millions other, and chances are that you would get GC before other IV members :).
The above is not my theory but a very well known attorney in NYC told me and my wife, when my wife was little bit out of status. Strange but true.
more...
485Mbe4001
09-29 06:22 PM
So you are ok with "colateral damage" to your GC ? I have never seen a school force creationism on a child, as for reading its the same everywhere (i remember in india my catholic shool was at pains to teach us that Ramayan was a legend...i didnt change my religion because of that). How many wars were fought during regans adminstration? Do you remember the tax rate during the Carter years? people were shelling out 17% on home loans while banks were paying 13% interest on their CD's. Media driven pontification is ok as long as you can substantiate them with valid reasoning. (Clinton years were good for us but some say that it laid the foundation for the dot com crisis, which lead to easy credit and so on)
I have been here since 1997. An Obama win may just restore my faith (which was severely damaged after Bush relection) in the average intelligence of a voter.
I know that chances of passing of a bill favorable to skilled immigrants are greater with Republicans, but there are other issues far more important to me. For e.g. with a Republican win, the chances of "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent abroad) increase tremendously. I do not want that to be funded through my tax money. Neither do i want my child to read about "creationism" in school (despite paying for all that private school fees!). These issues are more important to me than tax cuts or getting a green card sooner. just my two thoughts...
I have been here since 1997. An Obama win may just restore my faith (which was severely damaged after Bush relection) in the average intelligence of a voter.
I know that chances of passing of a bill favorable to skilled immigrants are greater with Republicans, but there are other issues far more important to me. For e.g. with a Republican win, the chances of "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent abroad) increase tremendously. I do not want that to be funded through my tax money. Neither do i want my child to read about "creationism" in school (despite paying for all that private school fees!). These issues are more important to me than tax cuts or getting a green card sooner. just my two thoughts...
mirage
01-07 01:38 PM
Refugee,
If you are talking about humanity than you should be concerned about the messacre of all the children accross all communities, why are you concerned about only muslim children, did you wake up when 1000's of Kashmiri Hindu children were messacred ? and if you are trying to tell us that muslim are peace loving and Israel is a war mongering nation, than please spare us. We don't have to look accross centuries of history of Islam to see how peace loving they have been, just pick up any day's newspaper and you can see where there is islam there is violence. India is suffering because of it's vote bank politics, they don't have will to deal with Terrorists, people in power are awarding terrorists, it's a failed country. India is trying to get somebody else to solve it's problem, that is why it's PM, foreign Minister etc. keeps prooving everyday that Mumbai blasts have Pakistan's hand, who cares ? who's asking for evidence ? Israel is a strong nation, it values it's citizens, it knows very well how to deal with terrorists..
If you are talking about humanity than you should be concerned about the messacre of all the children accross all communities, why are you concerned about only muslim children, did you wake up when 1000's of Kashmiri Hindu children were messacred ? and if you are trying to tell us that muslim are peace loving and Israel is a war mongering nation, than please spare us. We don't have to look accross centuries of history of Islam to see how peace loving they have been, just pick up any day's newspaper and you can see where there is islam there is violence. India is suffering because of it's vote bank politics, they don't have will to deal with Terrorists, people in power are awarding terrorists, it's a failed country. India is trying to get somebody else to solve it's problem, that is why it's PM, foreign Minister etc. keeps prooving everyday that Mumbai blasts have Pakistan's hand, who cares ? who's asking for evidence ? Israel is a strong nation, it values it's citizens, it knows very well how to deal with terrorists..
more...
.jpg "wallpaper windows 7 3d.")
rshirodkar
10-01 09:25 AM
Hello folks,
United States was and is a SHINING BEACON in the whole world. That was the reason that this GREAT COUNTRY attracted so many people from all over the world. People from all walks of like come here because they have a DREAM to make it BIG here. But looking at the state of affairs right now, it does not seem that this country will be the SHINING LIGHT that it used to be.
I came to this country in 1999. For the last 10 years I have been residing legally, paying taxes. At the end of all this I just dont see things moving. I had lot of opportunities but I could not take them because of my status.
Looking forward, I would sincerely hope that either of the presidential candidates look at the EB category people as legal residents.
People are becoming impatient. Many of my friends went back to other countries since they are getting better opportunities. I personally feel that countries like Cananda, Australia with their immigration policies are attracting good quality talent. Also with the Indian and Chinese economy growing at more than 7% -8%, there is growth in those countries.
I hope the next presidential candidate takes these things in consideration while working on the CIR bill.
thanks
Rohit Shirodkar
United States was and is a SHINING BEACON in the whole world. That was the reason that this GREAT COUNTRY attracted so many people from all over the world. People from all walks of like come here because they have a DREAM to make it BIG here. But looking at the state of affairs right now, it does not seem that this country will be the SHINING LIGHT that it used to be.
I came to this country in 1999. For the last 10 years I have been residing legally, paying taxes. At the end of all this I just dont see things moving. I had lot of opportunities but I could not take them because of my status.
Looking forward, I would sincerely hope that either of the presidential candidates look at the EB category people as legal residents.
People are becoming impatient. Many of my friends went back to other countries since they are getting better opportunities. I personally feel that countries like Cananda, Australia with their immigration policies are attracting good quality talent. Also with the Indian and Chinese economy growing at more than 7% -8%, there is growth in those countries.
I hope the next presidential candidate takes these things in consideration while working on the CIR bill.
thanks
Rohit Shirodkar
2010 Vista Wallpapers – Widescreen
mariner5555
04-09 07:29 AM
We've met with a lot of law makers and their aids, and really the housing down turn is not an argument for GC that is productive to use. If I get 30 minutes with a law maker's aid, each minute is valuable I can muster many more compelling arguments in that time.
So to answer your question: yes IV has considered this, but only for about 2 seconds. It is something that is not worth raising with law makers or media.
o.k. ..Thanks.
In that case, I honestly don't know why a lawmaker would care much about faster GC processing. if I was a lawmaker and someone comes to me complaining about USCIS - I would think in my mind "hey that is the system ..live with it". I would think the lawmaker would be thinking about other things (like having fun :-)) ..or taking care of the lobbyists who give them donations.
..I guess the only other hope would be if other countries in europe start giving super fast blue cards and the talent starts to go there. unless there is urgency the system will never change. even the namechecks were relaxed because of lawsuits.
I guess the only silver lining is that I will continue to rent (become richer ;-) and have fun while watching the home prices go down and down)
So to answer your question: yes IV has considered this, but only for about 2 seconds. It is something that is not worth raising with law makers or media.
o.k. ..Thanks.
In that case, I honestly don't know why a lawmaker would care much about faster GC processing. if I was a lawmaker and someone comes to me complaining about USCIS - I would think in my mind "hey that is the system ..live with it". I would think the lawmaker would be thinking about other things (like having fun :-)) ..or taking care of the lobbyists who give them donations.
..I guess the only other hope would be if other countries in europe start giving super fast blue cards and the talent starts to go there. unless there is urgency the system will never change. even the namechecks were relaxed because of lawsuits.
I guess the only silver lining is that I will continue to rent (become richer ;-) and have fun while watching the home prices go down and down)
more...
kartikiran
06-23 05:34 PM
vivid_bharti, living in your own space is a pleasure only if we know we are allowed to stay here permanently. As long as we all wait for our green cards, it is never a pleasure. We will be concerned about what happens to our job, related to it with our H1, 485 etc. It is never a pleasure as long as we wait for green cards. Rent or Buy, does not matter.
Just my two cents. If you found this message useful, please join your respective state chapters, if you still have not.
Even a tiny ant understands grassroots level approach when it builds the mass by joining each other while looking for food. Meanwhile, we are not able to join hands to get our problems resolved. IV Core is willing to provide directions, but we need to trust each other and first join hands locally to make a nationwide dent.
I'm surprised nobody is even considering the other aspect i.e. the pleasure to live in your own house. We people are living in US in a small sized appt. while we bought houses in India, which is on rent. You will never know the pleasure of living in your own space...
Just my two cents. If you found this message useful, please join your respective state chapters, if you still have not.
Even a tiny ant understands grassroots level approach when it builds the mass by joining each other while looking for food. Meanwhile, we are not able to join hands to get our problems resolved. IV Core is willing to provide directions, but we need to trust each other and first join hands locally to make a nationwide dent.
I'm surprised nobody is even considering the other aspect i.e. the pleasure to live in your own house. We people are living in US in a small sized appt. while we bought houses in India, which is on rent. You will never know the pleasure of living in your own space...
hair Windows Vista Red Wallpaper
vdlrao
07-14 11:02 AM
EB2 dates may be unavailable/ dont move. But it is just for a very short span of time. And after that EB2 dates start moving quickly again. I presume by 2009 october, the EB2 India PD will close to 2008. Any retrogression, if there is, in EB2 will be very mild from now on because of the spillovers.
Regarding EB3: Every year there had been about 100k approvals in EB3 category, out of around 160K(even though there are 140k visas, there have been approving more because they are using unused family visa numbers) approvals in Employment Based Category. This is because of vertical fall outs of visa numbers. Now they have changed the scenario to horizontal fall outs (spreading across at the same category level( ex. EB2) irrespective of country of chargeability.). So this time it would be around 100K approvals in EB2 category.
Let us make as much noice as we could because of EB3 retrogression. That doesnt effect EB2 movement. But may make it possible visa numbers increase for EB category by legislation. So we have to support this agitation made by our EB3 friends.
I could seee all the EB3 folks with PD older than 2006 and EB2 folks with PD older than 2008 will be cleared off in the next two years. I am sure there wont be not more than 1 or 2 years delay between EB2 and EB3 categories in near future.And there are lot of things going to happen for employment based immigratin in the next two years.
This EB2 movement of 2 and half years is just a first step by DOS.
Regarding EB3: Every year there had been about 100k approvals in EB3 category, out of around 160K(even though there are 140k visas, there have been approving more because they are using unused family visa numbers) approvals in Employment Based Category. This is because of vertical fall outs of visa numbers. Now they have changed the scenario to horizontal fall outs (spreading across at the same category level( ex. EB2) irrespective of country of chargeability.). So this time it would be around 100K approvals in EB2 category.
Let us make as much noice as we could because of EB3 retrogression. That doesnt effect EB2 movement. But may make it possible visa numbers increase for EB category by legislation. So we have to support this agitation made by our EB3 friends.
I could seee all the EB3 folks with PD older than 2006 and EB2 folks with PD older than 2008 will be cleared off in the next two years. I am sure there wont be not more than 1 or 2 years delay between EB2 and EB3 categories in near future.And there are lot of things going to happen for employment based immigratin in the next two years.
This EB2 movement of 2 and half years is just a first step by DOS.
more...
krishna.ahd
01-06 04:10 PM
Didn't Narendra Modi followed the footstep of Isreali counterparts by killing innocents in Gujarat?
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
If you dont know the reality , then
I had lived in gujarat for 40 years and all these years right from 1965 every year there was communal riots ( sepcially starts on Rath Yatra ) and more Hindu got killed then Muslims , just once the more muslim got killed then Hindu , and you see the whole world come to know about that. Where were every one including you for the last 40 years ??
BTW - tackle terrorism ( proxy war from Pakistan) we need some one like Modi , the way Isreal hadnling . Isreal IS REAL (hero).
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
If you dont know the reality , then
I had lived in gujarat for 40 years and all these years right from 1965 every year there was communal riots ( sepcially starts on Rath Yatra ) and more Hindu got killed then Muslims , just once the more muslim got killed then Hindu , and you see the whole world come to know about that. Where were every one including you for the last 40 years ??
BTW - tackle terrorism ( proxy war from Pakistan) we need some one like Modi , the way Isreal hadnling . Isreal IS REAL (hero).
hot pictures windows vista
chanduv23
04-12 03:20 PM
Yes, we are all in trouble because of consultants. Nice attitude.
I can say that I am in trouble because of everyone else in the queue of 500,000 highly skilled H1 and L1 people waiting for GC. Everyone else other than me and my family is causing trouble for me.
If all others in the queue were to vanish or die somehow,my PD would become current and I can file for 485.
Isnt that the attitude of IEEE-USA. We are in trouble because of competition from Indian and Chinese professionals.
They have a problem with Indian and Chinese engineers whether they come here, or dont come here. They have problem with H1B, they have a problem if they dont come here and merely work on jobs in India and China that are outsourced from here to there.
Just like IEEE-USA has problem with existence of competition, you have problem with the existence of consultants because that sub-community within this community is also asking for Greencards. And your solution is to eliminate competition.
Consultants can say the same thing...that we are in trouble because of these perm-fulltime jobs holders who stick to one job for 10 years and we have a problem with that.
How can you justify, with reasonable objective arguments that perm-fulltime jobs holders should be ahead of the queue from consultants and they are more deserving candidates for Greencard than consultants? I am not a consultant myself but I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this. Dont tell me crap that consultants pad their resumes. Everyone does it. Whether its consultants or perm-fulltime jobs holders, and whether its H1B or citizens, EVERYONE who is desperate for a job would pad his/her resume. You would do it too if it meant getting yourself away from filing bankruptcy.
I have worked in both capacities, as consultant and as FT. I did FT for 5 years and got fired and moved to consulting and am doing good here. So I am kinda balanced on this issue.
It is no one's fault. We all followed the system properly and did not break any law. So it does not make sense to blame felllow immigrants.
I can say that I am in trouble because of everyone else in the queue of 500,000 highly skilled H1 and L1 people waiting for GC. Everyone else other than me and my family is causing trouble for me.
If all others in the queue were to vanish or die somehow,my PD would become current and I can file for 485.
Isnt that the attitude of IEEE-USA. We are in trouble because of competition from Indian and Chinese professionals.
They have a problem with Indian and Chinese engineers whether they come here, or dont come here. They have problem with H1B, they have a problem if they dont come here and merely work on jobs in India and China that are outsourced from here to there.
Just like IEEE-USA has problem with existence of competition, you have problem with the existence of consultants because that sub-community within this community is also asking for Greencards. And your solution is to eliminate competition.
Consultants can say the same thing...that we are in trouble because of these perm-fulltime jobs holders who stick to one job for 10 years and we have a problem with that.
How can you justify, with reasonable objective arguments that perm-fulltime jobs holders should be ahead of the queue from consultants and they are more deserving candidates for Greencard than consultants? I am not a consultant myself but I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this. Dont tell me crap that consultants pad their resumes. Everyone does it. Whether its consultants or perm-fulltime jobs holders, and whether its H1B or citizens, EVERYONE who is desperate for a job would pad his/her resume. You would do it too if it meant getting yourself away from filing bankruptcy.
I have worked in both capacities, as consultant and as FT. I did FT for 5 years and got fired and moved to consulting and am doing good here. So I am kinda balanced on this issue.
It is no one's fault. We all followed the system properly and did not break any law. So it does not make sense to blame felllow immigrants.
more...
house vista wallpaper 01 38 High
Macaca
02-26 04:54 PM
From here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007022301697&start=101). At least Lou Dobbs is not quoted here.
If you want a Lou Dobbsian economy - take a look at France. That is the economy that comes closest to what people like Lou Dobbs are advocating.
If you want a Lou Dobbsian economy - take a look at France. That is the economy that comes closest to what people like Lou Dobbs are advocating.
tattoo Windows Vista on Apple iPhone
GCnightmare
08-02 02:55 PM
Thanks for the quick reply. I never overstayed my I-94 either before leaving US or re-entering US. But just a thought... Do you mean if somebody covered by 245(i) and never left US after filing the labor before April 2001, still be eligible to adjust status?
Thanks
Thanks
more...
pictures wallpaper windows 7 3d.
number30
03-26 04:48 PM
Person leaves employer X (140 approved, more than 180 days since 485 filing, etc.) and joins employer Y on EAD (under AC21).
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
We had similar case. It was in 2002. Company was ready to issue another future offer letter. Local USCIS office at Buffalo NY did not agree to continue process. They said job offer is gone the I-485 is gone and has valid reason the denial. They asked my friend to refile I-140 and I-485.
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
We had similar case. It was in 2002. Company was ready to issue another future offer letter. Local USCIS office at Buffalo NY did not agree to continue process. They said job offer is gone the I-485 is gone and has valid reason the denial. They asked my friend to refile I-140 and I-485.
dresses Windows 7 Wallpaper in Windows
Macaca
05-27 06:06 PM
In December, KPMG was retained by China Integrated Energy, which claimed to be a leader in the production of biodiesel. Just hiring a Big Four auditor enabled it to raise $24 million from institutional investors in the United States. Three months later, KPMG certified the financials.
Six weeks after that, KPMG repudiated the report and resigned. By then, China Integrated Energy executives had refused to cooperate with a board investigation into claims that the company was a complete fraud.
The Chinese audit firms, while they are affiliated with major international audit networks, have never been inspected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the United States. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires those inspections for accounting firms that audit companies whose securities trade in the United States, but China has refused to allow inspections.
In a speech at a Baruch College conference earlier this month, James R. Doty, chairman of the accounting oversight board, called on the major firms to �improve preventative global quality controls,� but said that actual inspections were needed.
Two weeks ago, Chinese and American officials meeting in Washington said they would try to reach agreement �on the oversight of accounting firms providing audit services for public companies in the two countries, so as to enhance mutual trust.�
Frauds and audit failures can, and do, happen in many countries, including in the United States. But the audacity of these frauds, as well as the efforts to intimidate auditors, stand out. If investors such as Goldman Sachs and Hank Greenberg cannot fend for themselves, something more needs to be done if Chinese companies are to continue to trade in American markets.
Corporate China's political shadows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/22/corporate-china-political-shadows) By Isabel Hilton | Guardian
The Truth about the Three Gorges Dam (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/24/the-truth-about-the-three-gorges-dam/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
AIDS Funds Frozen for China in Grant Dispute (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/asia/21china.html) By SHARON LaFRANIERE | New York Times
Kicking the Great Firewall (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/05/25/kicking-the-great-firewall/) By Mu Chunshan | The Diplomat
China opens doors to despots with series of pariah state visits (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-opens-doors-to-despots-with-series-of-pariah-state-visits-2289723.html) By Clifford Coonan | Independent
Ai Weiwei's Zodiac heads
It's political (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/05/ai_weiweis_zodiac_heads)
The Economist
China�s jasmine crackdown and the legal system (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/26/china-s-jasmine-crackdown-and-the-legal-system/) By Donald C. Clarke | George Washington University Law School
Six weeks after that, KPMG repudiated the report and resigned. By then, China Integrated Energy executives had refused to cooperate with a board investigation into claims that the company was a complete fraud.
The Chinese audit firms, while they are affiliated with major international audit networks, have never been inspected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the United States. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires those inspections for accounting firms that audit companies whose securities trade in the United States, but China has refused to allow inspections.
In a speech at a Baruch College conference earlier this month, James R. Doty, chairman of the accounting oversight board, called on the major firms to �improve preventative global quality controls,� but said that actual inspections were needed.
Two weeks ago, Chinese and American officials meeting in Washington said they would try to reach agreement �on the oversight of accounting firms providing audit services for public companies in the two countries, so as to enhance mutual trust.�
Frauds and audit failures can, and do, happen in many countries, including in the United States. But the audacity of these frauds, as well as the efforts to intimidate auditors, stand out. If investors such as Goldman Sachs and Hank Greenberg cannot fend for themselves, something more needs to be done if Chinese companies are to continue to trade in American markets.
Corporate China's political shadows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/22/corporate-china-political-shadows) By Isabel Hilton | Guardian
The Truth about the Three Gorges Dam (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/24/the-truth-about-the-three-gorges-dam/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
AIDS Funds Frozen for China in Grant Dispute (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/asia/21china.html) By SHARON LaFRANIERE | New York Times
Kicking the Great Firewall (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/05/25/kicking-the-great-firewall/) By Mu Chunshan | The Diplomat
China opens doors to despots with series of pariah state visits (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-opens-doors-to-despots-with-series-of-pariah-state-visits-2289723.html) By Clifford Coonan | Independent
Ai Weiwei's Zodiac heads
It's political (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/05/ai_weiweis_zodiac_heads)
The Economist
China�s jasmine crackdown and the legal system (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/26/china-s-jasmine-crackdown-and-the-legal-system/) By Donald C. Clarke | George Washington University Law School
more...
makeup Backgrounds For Windows Vista.
paskal
07-08 08:46 PM
I have been here 11 years. 4 different employers.
I have all my returns and W2's
why in the world would i keep every paystub?
makes no sense. of course little does.
UN thanks for the comments.
any predictions on where we are headed? my vested interest is in EB2 india...
btw why is everyone presuming that the 60,000 approvals went to India and China? EB3 ROW is retrogressed- all the extra numbers could have gone there. that would in any case be all the better for india/china in the longer term- the faster that backlog is finished, the greater the chance india/china lines will show meaningful movement.
also did you notice the cantwell-kyl compromise amendment in the failed CIR 2007 had a provision for 485 filing w/o visa numbers current?
I have all my returns and W2's
why in the world would i keep every paystub?
makes no sense. of course little does.
UN thanks for the comments.
any predictions on where we are headed? my vested interest is in EB2 india...
btw why is everyone presuming that the 60,000 approvals went to India and China? EB3 ROW is retrogressed- all the extra numbers could have gone there. that would in any case be all the better for india/china in the longer term- the faster that backlog is finished, the greater the chance india/china lines will show meaningful movement.
also did you notice the cantwell-kyl compromise amendment in the failed CIR 2007 had a provision for 485 filing w/o visa numbers current?
girlfriend wallpaper para windows vista.
unitednations
03-24 06:44 PM
Thanks UnitedNations for this discussion.
In the booming years of 99-00 you could see all these consulting companies having a ball. Personally I have seen people with no relevant skill set getting h1's approved in a totally unrelated job profile. I even have come across staffing companies who have hired recruiters as "business analyst's", now its highly unlikely that these companies could not find recruiters here. But the system was getting misused rampantly.
I have had experience with companies who with collusion of someone inside a company
"snagged" portion of revenue from a contract. It wasnt common for 3-4 companies to
act as middleman's ("layers") the final employee who actually worked getting literally
peanuts share of the contract amount. I think this still happens today from what I have heard from my friends.
USCIS had to respond in someway or the other. I am happy that they did but on the other hand I feel sorry for their employees who are probably innocent "collateral damage" victims
It makes me very uneasy as who knows what USCIS will come up with next. The longer our wait is there is a potential for more scrutiny and who knows what pitfall awaits us lurking somewhere where we least expect. Just because people misused the system we are all going to face the consequences.
When I first started to get to know consulatants and staffing companies; I thought that this whole bribe system; creating positions at end clients; how consultants got selected, etc., was a big racket.
However; when I did introspection of how things worked in my industry; I pretty much concluded that it was done in same way but at much, much higher levels.
USCIS is just keeping it pretty simple these days; show us that there is a job with an end client that requires a degree. They pretty much know that it is impossible. Even if you can get one; they pick on it pretty good and still deny it.
The system was actually designed for staffing companies when you think about it. When h-1b was first created; no one would have used it if it wasn't for staffing companies. Typical US companies wouldn't have the network to get foreign employees unless they were already here. To get them from a foreign country then the only companies who can really do so are the staffing companies.
The main reason that I can't get behind lifting of the country quota is exactly this reason. You have a lot of companies run by the same nationality who will only recruit their own people. The staffing companies don't advertise in Indonesia, Germany, Brazil, etc. They only go after their own people. The whole monopolization of visas was used to prevent this type of behaviour.
I always thought that there are people from around the world who want to come here but can't because they are not part of the "system". You can see this in the greencard lottery. Almost 9 million people apploy to get here through this. If they had their own country people looking to get them here then there would be a more equal distribution of visas.
I think people need to step back and think that this is one of the reasons why they have country quotas. No matter what people think that they re being hired for their skills and that employers don't care about their nationality; people need to understand that a "system" has been designed that is benefitting a few nationalities. Once you can get here then you can find your way. However, if you can't get here then you can't find your way.
In the booming years of 99-00 you could see all these consulting companies having a ball. Personally I have seen people with no relevant skill set getting h1's approved in a totally unrelated job profile. I even have come across staffing companies who have hired recruiters as "business analyst's", now its highly unlikely that these companies could not find recruiters here. But the system was getting misused rampantly.
I have had experience with companies who with collusion of someone inside a company
"snagged" portion of revenue from a contract. It wasnt common for 3-4 companies to
act as middleman's ("layers") the final employee who actually worked getting literally
peanuts share of the contract amount. I think this still happens today from what I have heard from my friends.
USCIS had to respond in someway or the other. I am happy that they did but on the other hand I feel sorry for their employees who are probably innocent "collateral damage" victims
It makes me very uneasy as who knows what USCIS will come up with next. The longer our wait is there is a potential for more scrutiny and who knows what pitfall awaits us lurking somewhere where we least expect. Just because people misused the system we are all going to face the consequences.
When I first started to get to know consulatants and staffing companies; I thought that this whole bribe system; creating positions at end clients; how consultants got selected, etc., was a big racket.
However; when I did introspection of how things worked in my industry; I pretty much concluded that it was done in same way but at much, much higher levels.
USCIS is just keeping it pretty simple these days; show us that there is a job with an end client that requires a degree. They pretty much know that it is impossible. Even if you can get one; they pick on it pretty good and still deny it.
The system was actually designed for staffing companies when you think about it. When h-1b was first created; no one would have used it if it wasn't for staffing companies. Typical US companies wouldn't have the network to get foreign employees unless they were already here. To get them from a foreign country then the only companies who can really do so are the staffing companies.
The main reason that I can't get behind lifting of the country quota is exactly this reason. You have a lot of companies run by the same nationality who will only recruit their own people. The staffing companies don't advertise in Indonesia, Germany, Brazil, etc. They only go after their own people. The whole monopolization of visas was used to prevent this type of behaviour.
I always thought that there are people from around the world who want to come here but can't because they are not part of the "system". You can see this in the greencard lottery. Almost 9 million people apploy to get here through this. If they had their own country people looking to get them here then there would be a more equal distribution of visas.
I think people need to step back and think that this is one of the reasons why they have country quotas. No matter what people think that they re being hired for their skills and that employers don't care about their nationality; people need to understand that a "system" has been designed that is benefitting a few nationalities. Once you can get here then you can find your way. However, if you can't get here then you can't find your way.
hairstyles Windows 7 Wallpaper Unofficial
EB3IFiasco
08-05 10:41 PM
We'll have to just make sure we file an amicus on behalf of the USCIS if a case like this goes forward...
walking_dude
08-05 10:39 AM
Cases related to Immigration Law cannot be filed in regular courts. Only immigration courts/Judges can decide on matters related to immigration.
Filing a case is one thing and winning it is a different thing. You guys will need an attorney who knows the ins-and-outs of Immigration law to win this case. I'm not surprised if AILA and USCIS (who have strong ties with AILA) oppose it in court. You guys think you can argue your case against these seasoned attorneys - without hiring an immigration lawyer, and win it?
All I am saying is don't take decisions based on emotion. Give reality a chance.
I have utmost respect for you Walking_Dude. Your leadership and ethusasm is phenomenal. But even in IV , I comes before We.
Personally, I don't think one necessary needs a immigration attorney for this. This is a public interest litigation. The task is definitly not easy but if 50 people can join hands and willing to shell out $500 dollars. It is doable. But I doubt that will happen.
Filing a case is one thing and winning it is a different thing. You guys will need an attorney who knows the ins-and-outs of Immigration law to win this case. I'm not surprised if AILA and USCIS (who have strong ties with AILA) oppose it in court. You guys think you can argue your case against these seasoned attorneys - without hiring an immigration lawyer, and win it?
All I am saying is don't take decisions based on emotion. Give reality a chance.
I have utmost respect for you Walking_Dude. Your leadership and ethusasm is phenomenal. But even in IV , I comes before We.
Personally, I don't think one necessary needs a immigration attorney for this. This is a public interest litigation. The task is definitly not easy but if 50 people can join hands and willing to shell out $500 dollars. It is doable. But I doubt that will happen.
Macaca
12-27 07:15 PM
In �Daily Show� Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html) By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER | New York Times
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�