Macaca
03-13 08:29 PM
Some paras from New Math on Hill, Scramble on K Street (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201579.html) -- The House's pledge of fiscal restraint could threaten tax breaks across many industries. Businesses and the lobbyists who represent them are on high alert.
Lobbyists are scrambling all over Capitol Hill to prevent any of their clients from becoming a "pay-for."
The Democrats' new pay-as-you-go budget regimen means that lawmakers who want to spend more on one program have to either cut another or raise taxes to pay for it. Similarly, if they want to cut taxes, they must fund the cut by trimming programs or raising other taxes to make up the difference.
Those budgetary offsets are called pay-fors -- a new Washington buzzword striking fear in the hearts of special interests.
Lobbyists are scrambling all over Capitol Hill to prevent any of their clients from becoming a "pay-for."
The Democrats' new pay-as-you-go budget regimen means that lawmakers who want to spend more on one program have to either cut another or raise taxes to pay for it. Similarly, if they want to cut taxes, they must fund the cut by trimming programs or raising other taxes to make up the difference.
Those budgetary offsets are called pay-fors -- a new Washington buzzword striking fear in the hearts of special interests.
wallpaper American Idol contestant Paul
pappu
04-07 05:35 AM
Guys,
There is going to be no difference whether you
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
So take this seriously and do not underestimate this.
And if you work perm-fulltime it will indirectly affect you. Projects are not done in isolation. Most projects have a mix of full-time employees and consultants who are sourced from vendors and H1B recruitors. Projects falter and fail when abruptly some consultants go back to their home countries because their H1s couldnt get extended. And that affects everyone. Job security depends on success of IT or other projects and if you are a part of failed project that was lost half way due to lack of skilled employees, then your job security also diminishes. If you are laid off, then the H1 transfer to a new company would be subject to the new rules under this law.
Infact, this affects everyone.
Students looking for new H1B
Students on OPT
H1Bs getting extensions
H4s transferring to H1Bs
and all H1Bs indirectly and directly
Because now ALL employers will be hesitant to hire an H1B in ANY field due to such tough laws and lot of paperwork and lot of restrictions.
There is going to be no difference whether you
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
So take this seriously and do not underestimate this.
And if you work perm-fulltime it will indirectly affect you. Projects are not done in isolation. Most projects have a mix of full-time employees and consultants who are sourced from vendors and H1B recruitors. Projects falter and fail when abruptly some consultants go back to their home countries because their H1s couldnt get extended. And that affects everyone. Job security depends on success of IT or other projects and if you are a part of failed project that was lost half way due to lack of skilled employees, then your job security also diminishes. If you are laid off, then the H1 transfer to a new company would be subject to the new rules under this law.
Infact, this affects everyone.
Students looking for new H1B
Students on OPT
H1Bs getting extensions
H4s transferring to H1Bs
and all H1Bs indirectly and directly
Because now ALL employers will be hesitant to hire an H1B in ANY field due to such tough laws and lot of paperwork and lot of restrictions.
javadeveloper
08-02 01:31 PM
Your wisdom is amaizing and we are happy to see you and request you to help clear the darkness of GC for many souls.
I second you !!! I also heard from my co-worker that UN's wisdom is awesome.He is so popular.
I second you !!! I also heard from my co-worker that UN's wisdom is awesome.He is so popular.
2011 American+idol+paul+mcdonald+video Finalist paul a song And apr it seems
dpp
05-16 12:18 PM
US congress cannot force investors to invest money only in US and get work done only in US.
Its not possible for US Government to ban outsourcing. The only thing they can do is create incentives to limit outsourcing. However, if a company still wants to outsource jobs overseas, Congress cant do ANYTHING about it.
I heard sometime back that some states banned Outsourcing of govt work. Is it not correct?
Its not possible for US Government to ban outsourcing. The only thing they can do is create incentives to limit outsourcing. However, if a company still wants to outsource jobs overseas, Congress cant do ANYTHING about it.
I heard sometime back that some states banned Outsourcing of govt work. Is it not correct?
more...
sc3
07-14 05:29 PM
I definitely feel that EB3 should go ahead with this campaign. there has to be some fairness ...if we don't speak up then year after year, the same thing will happen and maybe in 2015, EB3 will get spillover visas. those who are writing against EB3 --tell me this, if a person who has come to US in 2007 and he has applied during the july fiasco ..and if he gets preference over a EB3 person who is still stuck with a PD of 2002 ..would you still say that the system is fair ???
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
yes, we should continue with the campaign. However, I am more concerned about getting what has been already made available to us. While I am willing to play by the rules and wait, I am not willing to cede my place in the line.
Asking for 2 to 1 ratio etc. is something new, and will require legislative process, on that I am not an ardent supporter, there we can just request (and hope for the best), but in making sure we are getting what we were promised is demanding the best.
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
yes, we should continue with the campaign. However, I am more concerned about getting what has been already made available to us. While I am willing to play by the rules and wait, I am not willing to cede my place in the line.
Asking for 2 to 1 ratio etc. is something new, and will require legislative process, on that I am not an ardent supporter, there we can just request (and hope for the best), but in making sure we are getting what we were promised is demanding the best.
prioritydate
01-10 10:18 PM
First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
Why you are not raising hue and cry for Sudan massacre? Oh! muslims killing muslims or muslims killing Xians! May be that is fine with you!
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
Why you are not raising hue and cry for Sudan massacre? Oh! muslims killing muslims or muslims killing Xians! May be that is fine with you!
more...
Macaca
05-27 06:05 PM
The Audacity of Chinese Frauds (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/business/27norris.html) By FLOYD NORRIS | The New York Times
To pull off a fraud that humiliates the cream of the global financial elite, you need to have some friends. And where better to have them than at the local bank?
The fraud at Longtop Financial Technologies, a Chinese financial software company, was exposed this week in an amazing letter from its auditors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. It appears to be a tale of corrupt bankers and their threats to auditors who had learned of the lies.
Deloitte, which had given clean audit opinions to Longtop for six consecutive years, apparently was well on its way to providing a seventh, for the fiscal year that ended March 31. But for some reason � Deloitte did not say why �the auditor went back to Longtop�s banks last week to again seek confirmation of cash balances.
It appears Deloitte sought confirmations from bank headquarters, rather than the local branches that had previously verified that Longtop�s cash really was on deposit. And that set off panic at the software firm.
�Within hours� of beginning the new round of confirmations on May 17, the confirmation process was stopped, Deloitte stated in its letter of resignation, the result of �intervention by the company�s officials including the chief operating officer, the confirmation process was stopped.�
The company told banks that Deloitte was not really the auditor. It seized documents, Deloitte wrote, and made �threats to stop our staff leaving the company premises unless they allowed the company to retain our audit files.�
Despite the company�s efforts, Deloitte learned Longtop did not have the cash it claimed and that there were �significant bank borrowings� not reflected in the company�s books.
A few days later, Deloitte said, Longtop�s chairman, Jia Xiao Gong, told a Deloitte partner that there was �fake cash recorded on the books� because there had been �fake revenue in the past.�
The stock has not traded since that confrontation. The final trade on the New York Stock Exchange was for $18.93, a price that valued the company at $1.1 billion. At its peak in November, it had a market capitalization of $2.4 billion.
It now seems likely that the stock is worthless. It is a real company, but its revenue and profits probably were a small fraction of the amounts reported. The existence of the �significant� debt means that whatever assets are left are likely to be owned by the banks, not the investors.
Deloitte may have decided to check the numbers again because it knew a growing group of bears on the stock had been challenging the Longtop story as too good to be true, questioning both its financial statements and the claims it made for its software. A month earlier, Deloitte resigned as the auditor of another Chinese company, China MediaExpress, in part because of questions about bank confirmations.
It is never good for an auditor to have certified a fraud, but Deloitte seems to have acted properly. It got bank confirmations, and it got them directly from the banks rather than relying on the company to provide them, as PricewaterhouseCoopers had done when it failed to notice a huge fraud at Satyam, an Indian technology company.
But the confirmations were lies.
�This means the Chinese banks were in on the fraud, at least at branch level,� says John Hempton, the chief investment officer of Bronte Capital, an Australian hedge fund. He was one of the bears who questioned Longtop�s claims and now stands to profit from the stock�s collapse.
�This is no longer a story about Longtop, and it is not a story about Deloitte,� he added. �Given the centrality of Chinese banks to the global economy, it�s a story much bigger than Deloitte or Longtop.�
The Securities and Exchange Commission has started an investigation, and no doubt more details will emerge, including the names of the banks involved. Just what, if anything, Chinese officials choose to do could provide an indication about whether defrauding foreign investors is deemed to be a serious crime in China.
Fraud in Chinese stocks is not new. But it had seemed that the worst problems were in small companies without Wall Street pedigrees. Many of the fraudulent companies went public in the United States by the reverse-merger shell route, a course long favored by shady stock promoters. That route allowed companies to start trading without going though a formal underwriting process or having its prospectus reviewed by the S.E.C. And many used tiny audit firms based in the United States that seemingly did little if any work.
What is stunning about Longtop and some other recent disasters is the list of smart people who were fooled.
Longtop did not go public through a reverse merger. Its initial public offering, in 2007, was underwritten by Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank. Morgan Stanley was a lead manager in a 2009 offering of more shares. Major owners of the stock included hedge funds run by people known as �tiger cubs� because they got their start at Julian Robertson�s Tiger Fund.
On May 4, only a couple of weeks before the fateful struggle at Longtop offices, an analyst for Morgan Stanley, Carol Wang, wrote:
�Longtop�s stock price has been very volatile in recent days amid fraud allegations that management has denied. Our analysis of margins and cash flow gives us confidence in its accounting methods. We believe market misconceptions provide a good entry point for long-term investors.�
By then, Longtop officials had begun to scramble. According to its last audited balance sheet, cash accounted for more than half of Longtop�s $606 million in assets. Bears were asking why the company needed all that cash and were questioning whether it existed.
In mid-March, just after the fraud at China MediaExpress was exposed, Longtop announced plans to put some of the cash to use by spending up to $50 million to repurchase its own shares. On April 28, the company tried to assure analysts that the fraud claims were bogus. Derek Palaschuk, a Canadian accountant who served as the company�s chief financial officer, wrapped himself in Deloitte�s prestige, saying that those who questioned Longtop were �criticizing the integrity of one of the top accounting firms in the world.�
�For me,� he said, �the most important relations I have other than with my family, my C.E.O., and then the next on the list is Deloitte as our auditor, because their trust and support is extremely important.�
Mr. Palaschuk had an explanation for why the company had not repurchased any shares. It had some very good news that it had not yet released, and �we were advised by our securities counsel that we should not be in the market purchasing our own shares in the event that this would be considered insider trading.�
Longtop is not the only Chinese fraud that caught prominent Americans. Starr International, an investment company run by Hank Greenberg, the former chairman of American International Group, invested $43.5 million in China MediaExpress and had a representative on the company�s board. Starr has filed suit in Delaware against the company and Deloitte.
Goldman Sachs was not the underwriter of ShengdaTech, a Chinese chemical company traded on Nasdaq, but its investment arm, Goldman Sachs Investment Management, had accumulated a 7.6 percent stake in the company before its auditor, KPMG, refused to sign off on the company�s 2010 annual report and then resigned in late April. KPMG cited �serious discrepancies� regarding bank balances and �discrepancies between KPMG�s direct calls to customers and confirmations returned by mail.� Just as at Longtop, it appeared that auditors had been given false confirmation letters.
In each of those three cases � Longtop, China MediaExpress and ShengdaTech � the auditors discovered discrepancies, but only after signing off on financial statements. That was not the case in this year�s other � and perhaps most embarrassing � resignation by a Big Four auditing firm.
To pull off a fraud that humiliates the cream of the global financial elite, you need to have some friends. And where better to have them than at the local bank?
The fraud at Longtop Financial Technologies, a Chinese financial software company, was exposed this week in an amazing letter from its auditors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. It appears to be a tale of corrupt bankers and their threats to auditors who had learned of the lies.
Deloitte, which had given clean audit opinions to Longtop for six consecutive years, apparently was well on its way to providing a seventh, for the fiscal year that ended March 31. But for some reason � Deloitte did not say why �the auditor went back to Longtop�s banks last week to again seek confirmation of cash balances.
It appears Deloitte sought confirmations from bank headquarters, rather than the local branches that had previously verified that Longtop�s cash really was on deposit. And that set off panic at the software firm.
�Within hours� of beginning the new round of confirmations on May 17, the confirmation process was stopped, Deloitte stated in its letter of resignation, the result of �intervention by the company�s officials including the chief operating officer, the confirmation process was stopped.�
The company told banks that Deloitte was not really the auditor. It seized documents, Deloitte wrote, and made �threats to stop our staff leaving the company premises unless they allowed the company to retain our audit files.�
Despite the company�s efforts, Deloitte learned Longtop did not have the cash it claimed and that there were �significant bank borrowings� not reflected in the company�s books.
A few days later, Deloitte said, Longtop�s chairman, Jia Xiao Gong, told a Deloitte partner that there was �fake cash recorded on the books� because there had been �fake revenue in the past.�
The stock has not traded since that confrontation. The final trade on the New York Stock Exchange was for $18.93, a price that valued the company at $1.1 billion. At its peak in November, it had a market capitalization of $2.4 billion.
It now seems likely that the stock is worthless. It is a real company, but its revenue and profits probably were a small fraction of the amounts reported. The existence of the �significant� debt means that whatever assets are left are likely to be owned by the banks, not the investors.
Deloitte may have decided to check the numbers again because it knew a growing group of bears on the stock had been challenging the Longtop story as too good to be true, questioning both its financial statements and the claims it made for its software. A month earlier, Deloitte resigned as the auditor of another Chinese company, China MediaExpress, in part because of questions about bank confirmations.
It is never good for an auditor to have certified a fraud, but Deloitte seems to have acted properly. It got bank confirmations, and it got them directly from the banks rather than relying on the company to provide them, as PricewaterhouseCoopers had done when it failed to notice a huge fraud at Satyam, an Indian technology company.
But the confirmations were lies.
�This means the Chinese banks were in on the fraud, at least at branch level,� says John Hempton, the chief investment officer of Bronte Capital, an Australian hedge fund. He was one of the bears who questioned Longtop�s claims and now stands to profit from the stock�s collapse.
�This is no longer a story about Longtop, and it is not a story about Deloitte,� he added. �Given the centrality of Chinese banks to the global economy, it�s a story much bigger than Deloitte or Longtop.�
The Securities and Exchange Commission has started an investigation, and no doubt more details will emerge, including the names of the banks involved. Just what, if anything, Chinese officials choose to do could provide an indication about whether defrauding foreign investors is deemed to be a serious crime in China.
Fraud in Chinese stocks is not new. But it had seemed that the worst problems were in small companies without Wall Street pedigrees. Many of the fraudulent companies went public in the United States by the reverse-merger shell route, a course long favored by shady stock promoters. That route allowed companies to start trading without going though a formal underwriting process or having its prospectus reviewed by the S.E.C. And many used tiny audit firms based in the United States that seemingly did little if any work.
What is stunning about Longtop and some other recent disasters is the list of smart people who were fooled.
Longtop did not go public through a reverse merger. Its initial public offering, in 2007, was underwritten by Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank. Morgan Stanley was a lead manager in a 2009 offering of more shares. Major owners of the stock included hedge funds run by people known as �tiger cubs� because they got their start at Julian Robertson�s Tiger Fund.
On May 4, only a couple of weeks before the fateful struggle at Longtop offices, an analyst for Morgan Stanley, Carol Wang, wrote:
�Longtop�s stock price has been very volatile in recent days amid fraud allegations that management has denied. Our analysis of margins and cash flow gives us confidence in its accounting methods. We believe market misconceptions provide a good entry point for long-term investors.�
By then, Longtop officials had begun to scramble. According to its last audited balance sheet, cash accounted for more than half of Longtop�s $606 million in assets. Bears were asking why the company needed all that cash and were questioning whether it existed.
In mid-March, just after the fraud at China MediaExpress was exposed, Longtop announced plans to put some of the cash to use by spending up to $50 million to repurchase its own shares. On April 28, the company tried to assure analysts that the fraud claims were bogus. Derek Palaschuk, a Canadian accountant who served as the company�s chief financial officer, wrapped himself in Deloitte�s prestige, saying that those who questioned Longtop were �criticizing the integrity of one of the top accounting firms in the world.�
�For me,� he said, �the most important relations I have other than with my family, my C.E.O., and then the next on the list is Deloitte as our auditor, because their trust and support is extremely important.�
Mr. Palaschuk had an explanation for why the company had not repurchased any shares. It had some very good news that it had not yet released, and �we were advised by our securities counsel that we should not be in the market purchasing our own shares in the event that this would be considered insider trading.�
Longtop is not the only Chinese fraud that caught prominent Americans. Starr International, an investment company run by Hank Greenberg, the former chairman of American International Group, invested $43.5 million in China MediaExpress and had a representative on the company�s board. Starr has filed suit in Delaware against the company and Deloitte.
Goldman Sachs was not the underwriter of ShengdaTech, a Chinese chemical company traded on Nasdaq, but its investment arm, Goldman Sachs Investment Management, had accumulated a 7.6 percent stake in the company before its auditor, KPMG, refused to sign off on the company�s 2010 annual report and then resigned in late April. KPMG cited �serious discrepancies� regarding bank balances and �discrepancies between KPMG�s direct calls to customers and confirmations returned by mail.� Just as at Longtop, it appeared that auditors had been given false confirmation letters.
In each of those three cases � Longtop, China MediaExpress and ShengdaTech � the auditors discovered discrepancies, but only after signing off on financial statements. That was not the case in this year�s other � and perhaps most embarrassing � resignation by a Big Four auditing firm.
2010 american idol paul mcdonald
unitednations
08-03 08:18 PM
huh? another shocker (atleast for me): what is the issue with using AC21 to go from a consulting job to a permanent one? As long as title and duties say the same. If I am consulting at a client site, cant I use AC21 to join them fulltime 6 months down the line? My duties etc remain exactly the same.
Remember when I was mentioning ability to pay and what happened in 2004.
Some people with approved 140's from 2002 and 2003 had the reopened by uscis and they started applying current day memorandum and current day adjudication standards to cases which were already approved. A number of people had their 140's revoked by uscis stating they were approved in error.
Chennai consulate and California service center both treat the staff augmentation companies as not the employer in "common law" context. That is; you are not in their control. that is why they always ask for letter/contract from the end client.
California service center was just starting to treat the 140's in the same manner before they stopped doing 140's. They were denying/revoking 140's because a company did not have a full time and permanent job for them.
Now;texas and nebraska do not do this. But with all of these legal wranglings; complaints by people; h-1b denials, consulate 221g's, etc.; eventually this could have an impact.
Let's say you are working at Client A. You work for B. You don't like their ratio; so you move to employer C, who gives you a better ratio but you still work at client A. Then you hop over to employer D because they process labors in a fast state or it is a substitute labor. Now; you file 140/485 and after six months you decide to join client A using AC21. Now; how would you justify this. From common law point of view; B, C and D are not your employer even though D is the one filing greencard for you. We'll see as time goes on when people start leaving en masse and uscis starts picking up and detecting these patterns as to what type of impact it will have.
Remember when I was mentioning ability to pay and what happened in 2004.
Some people with approved 140's from 2002 and 2003 had the reopened by uscis and they started applying current day memorandum and current day adjudication standards to cases which were already approved. A number of people had their 140's revoked by uscis stating they were approved in error.
Chennai consulate and California service center both treat the staff augmentation companies as not the employer in "common law" context. That is; you are not in their control. that is why they always ask for letter/contract from the end client.
California service center was just starting to treat the 140's in the same manner before they stopped doing 140's. They were denying/revoking 140's because a company did not have a full time and permanent job for them.
Now;texas and nebraska do not do this. But with all of these legal wranglings; complaints by people; h-1b denials, consulate 221g's, etc.; eventually this could have an impact.
Let's say you are working at Client A. You work for B. You don't like their ratio; so you move to employer C, who gives you a better ratio but you still work at client A. Then you hop over to employer D because they process labors in a fast state or it is a substitute labor. Now; you file 140/485 and after six months you decide to join client A using AC21. Now; how would you justify this. From common law point of view; B, C and D are not your employer even though D is the one filing greencard for you. We'll see as time goes on when people start leaving en masse and uscis starts picking up and detecting these patterns as to what type of impact it will have.
more...
Canadianindian
09-30 04:42 PM
I like Obama's opinion and his enthusiam. I would support him financially and in fact campaign and vote for him.
However, I am not sure if he understand the plight of Legal immigrants who have suffered for years with no relief in sight. We are law abiding people, but have to suffer tremendously. I am not sure if Obama is aware of our plight.
I am afraid if Obama wins the election, our chances of getting the GC will diminish as the CIR will not get his support to benefit the EB immigrants.
However, I am not sure if he understand the plight of Legal immigrants who have suffered for years with no relief in sight. We are law abiding people, but have to suffer tremendously. I am not sure if Obama is aware of our plight.
I am afraid if Obama wins the election, our chances of getting the GC will diminish as the CIR will not get his support to benefit the EB immigrants.
hair Paul McDonald : It was one of
xyzgc
12-22 09:35 PM
With all due respect XYZGC, I never said Kashmir should be gifted to Pakistan. What I have said is for a UN supervised solution. And I did not change my mind on that. We have fought three major wars and spending crores to maintain the status quo but to what end. It just a pain in @$$.
I share you concerns about Hindu minority in Pakistan and other Islamic society. But to make it clear neither I am against Islam (Though I DO NOT support the present Islamic Leadership structure) nor I beleive that it is not even remotely possible to covert India into a Islamic Society. But one should be prepared just in case.
On the other hand , I do beleive that by declaring Pakistan a terrorist nation it will force them to take some drastic steps.
Yes, we agree. I am also not against islam but against islamic leadership, especially the hardliners who seem to be ruling the Pakistani and drowning out the voices of the moderates and intellectuals there. In fact, nobody is against any individual.
And you never used the word "gifted". You already provided your reasons for saying whatever you did.
I share you concerns about Hindu minority in Pakistan and other Islamic society. But to make it clear neither I am against Islam (Though I DO NOT support the present Islamic Leadership structure) nor I beleive that it is not even remotely possible to covert India into a Islamic Society. But one should be prepared just in case.
On the other hand , I do beleive that by declaring Pakistan a terrorist nation it will force them to take some drastic steps.
Yes, we agree. I am also not against islam but against islamic leadership, especially the hardliners who seem to be ruling the Pakistani and drowning out the voices of the moderates and intellectuals there. In fact, nobody is against any individual.
And you never used the word "gifted". You already provided your reasons for saying whatever you did.
more...
mpadapa
08-05 10:39 AM
Rolling_Flood, great idea to benefit just U'r own GC cause. If you are positive about U'r logic why don't you go ahead and file a lawsuit. Looks like your true intention of creating this thread is to create a divide among IV members. Already members had a tough few weeks (in terms of unity) after the Aug bulletin. Now you are poking another rift.
The EB classification is for a future job. Since the person is qualified, he ports to EB2 midway so what. The GC is for a future job, and when the person gets his/her GC, he/she is qualified for that position at that time. So what is U'r logic??
If you want to truly fight the system them fight for a common basis for EB classification. There are cases where the same job title has been classified under all 3 categories. Example
Senior Programmer (say Bachelor's with 5 yrs exp)
Files under EB1 : because he/she came L1, qualification might be few yrs exp.
Files under EB2 : because he/she has 5 yrs of exp and the attorney was smart to classify it as EB2.
Files under EB3 : because of company policy or based on bad attorney advice (conservative approach).
The above example shows that if U'r company and attorney is smart U can get U'r GC faster.
If you are keen on doing a lawsuit why not
File one against USCIS for wasting thousands of visa's over the past few years, which is the source of this backlog.
Or file one against DOL for taking n number of years to get the LC done.
Or file one against 245 filers who clogged the USCIS system which is causing USCIS to be inefficient.
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
The EB classification is for a future job. Since the person is qualified, he ports to EB2 midway so what. The GC is for a future job, and when the person gets his/her GC, he/she is qualified for that position at that time. So what is U'r logic??
If you want to truly fight the system them fight for a common basis for EB classification. There are cases where the same job title has been classified under all 3 categories. Example
Senior Programmer (say Bachelor's with 5 yrs exp)
Files under EB1 : because he/she came L1, qualification might be few yrs exp.
Files under EB2 : because he/she has 5 yrs of exp and the attorney was smart to classify it as EB2.
Files under EB3 : because of company policy or based on bad attorney advice (conservative approach).
The above example shows that if U'r company and attorney is smart U can get U'r GC faster.
If you are keen on doing a lawsuit why not
File one against USCIS for wasting thousands of visa's over the past few years, which is the source of this backlog.
Or file one against DOL for taking n number of years to get the LC done.
Or file one against 245 filers who clogged the USCIS system which is causing USCIS to be inefficient.
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
hot american idol paul dating.
rameshvaid
07-14 05:23 PM
EB3-I..please print the attached word doc and sign and mail it to Department of state..this week
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Could somebody also post the adderess of USCIS please..
I mailed letter today..
RV
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Could somebody also post the adderess of USCIS please..
I mailed letter today..
RV
more...
house American Idol contestant
Macaca
02-15 05:34 PM
San Francisco's Democrat (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303714722970265.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks) WSJ Editorial, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
tattoo American Idol contestant Paul
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.
more...
pictures American idol top Took to
GCKaMaara
01-07 10:21 AM
Refugee_New,
Is this true? Are you just visiting forum just for this and not for your immigration at all? If so, its really bad.
Refugee_New already got the GC. I have read his some previous posts too and after that I doubt his commitment for the IV goals.
People responding to him please understand, either we can focus on efforts which will help us getting GC faster or we can continue to discuss this topic.
Is this true? Are you just visiting forum just for this and not for your immigration at all? If so, its really bad.
Refugee_New already got the GC. I have read his some previous posts too and after that I doubt his commitment for the IV goals.
People responding to him please understand, either we can focus on efforts which will help us getting GC faster or we can continue to discuss this topic.
dresses Paul McDonald talks about Idol
chanduv23
03-25 03:50 PM
ok..lets see how it goes.
I did not hire an attorney nor took a consultation..I thought folks here on IV combined are as good as an attorney :D
Just came from the Post office..sent all documents they asked for including Resume.
I dont know if my employer responded..I called them but they didn't respond..typical..huh
Lets see how it goes..
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), you will see me in
"Alberta Welcomes H1b" thread.. :D:D:D
It is always good to utilize services of a good Attorney for complex situations. But anyways good luck.
I did not hire an attorney nor took a consultation..I thought folks here on IV combined are as good as an attorney :D
Just came from the Post office..sent all documents they asked for including Resume.
I dont know if my employer responded..I called them but they didn't respond..typical..huh
Lets see how it goes..
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), you will see me in
"Alberta Welcomes H1b" thread.. :D:D:D
It is always good to utilize services of a good Attorney for complex situations. But anyways good luck.
more...
makeup isvisit the showy rhinestone suit that Paul+mcdonald+american+idol+pics
gc_chahiye
08-03 02:05 PM
... going from consulting companies to "permanent jobs"; .... all of these things add a lot of complexities.
huh? another shocker (atleast for me): what is the issue with using AC21 to go from a consulting job to a permanent one? As long as title and duties say the same. If I am consulting at a client site, cant I use AC21 to join them fulltime 6 months down the line? My duties etc remain exactly the same.
huh? another shocker (atleast for me): what is the issue with using AC21 to go from a consulting job to a permanent one? As long as title and duties say the same. If I am consulting at a client site, cant I use AC21 to join them fulltime 6 months down the line? My duties etc remain exactly the same.
girlfriend Idol#39;s Paul McDonald has
iwantmygreen
04-14 04:49 PM
When I was a kid I lived in a very small house (flat) with my parents. Now I look back & realize that was the happiest time of my life. We didnt have much money. My parents gave me lot of time & love. For a kid what matters the most is the love he recives from his parents.
I think personally we shouldn't make a statement "Our kids will have better lives in a house". If owning a house means you will give your kid less time then its a bad idea to own a house. If you will give your kid the same amount of time you will in an apatrment then buying a house is alright. The idea of owning a house depends on your financial situation rather then being able to give your kid a better life in a house.
FYI: I own a 6 BR house.
I think personally we shouldn't make a statement "Our kids will have better lives in a house". If owning a house means you will give your kid less time then its a bad idea to own a house. If you will give your kid the same amount of time you will in an apatrment then buying a house is alright. The idea of owning a house depends on your financial situation rather then being able to give your kid a better life in a house.
FYI: I own a 6 BR house.
hairstyles Fallen Idol: Paul McDonald
sumanitha
12-29 05:03 PM
This thread didnt had activity for the past 4 days.
Why did you bring it into limelight by asking it to delete? :D
It has no relevance in an immigration related forum
kris
Why did you bring it into limelight by asking it to delete? :D
It has no relevance in an immigration related forum
kris
Marphad
12-18 01:22 PM
I think all this can be summarized as "Live and Let Live". Terrorists and direct and indirect supporters of terrorists don't understand this.
And what do bible say about people who do not believe in bible. How can the creator who created everything,
......
Christ. I don;t think that every word of Quran is the word of Mohammed. I don't thin that every word of Geeta is the word of Krishna. If there was a way for these great souls to appear before us in this age and talk to people who "appear" to follow them, these great souls will tell their so called "followers" to stop this nonsense in their name.
.
And what do bible say about people who do not believe in bible. How can the creator who created everything,
......
Christ. I don;t think that every word of Quran is the word of Mohammed. I don't thin that every word of Geeta is the word of Krishna. If there was a way for these great souls to appear before us in this age and talk to people who "appear" to follow them, these great souls will tell their so called "followers" to stop this nonsense in their name.
.
Ahimsa
11-13 06:37 PM
Just watched Lou Dobbs tonight.
Lou tried his usual tactic of calling politicians "powerful".
He said "Next guest is the most powerful chairman, likely chairman, of the ways and means committee in the senate, Charlie Rangel".
Charlie rebutted immediately "I don't know what you mean by that. You can call powerful or whatever, but what we think will matter is how to get things done by working together..."
Lou will never change his course...
Lou tried his usual tactic of calling politicians "powerful".
He said "Next guest is the most powerful chairman, likely chairman, of the ways and means committee in the senate, Charlie Rangel".
Charlie rebutted immediately "I don't know what you mean by that. You can call powerful or whatever, but what we think will matter is how to get things done by working together..."
Lou will never change his course...
0 comments:
Post a Comment