nk2006
10-16 05:12 PM
add a poll to it
Added a poll. Please vote so we can keep track on how many letters we sent. Lets pick up the pace.
Added a poll. Please vote so we can keep track on how many letters we sent. Lets pick up the pace.
wallpaper peugeot 207 gti tuning
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
Blessing&Lifeisbeautiful
07-24 04:59 PM
Even if you are RN licenes and educated in the USA. You still need a visa screen. I had to apply for visa screen. In my case it took only 1 week to get it. you can apply on line and send your documents. I'm not sure about the EAD though. YOu may wwant to post your question on the free Consultaion thread.
www.cgfns.org
I have applied for my visascreen, but the lawyer is saying that EAD and probably the application may be denied! I thought that it is required at the later stages of the GC process.
Now please share the secret of HOW you got a visascreen in 1 week! I'm flabbergasted. This is the first I heard. Please share
www.cgfns.org
I have applied for my visascreen, but the lawyer is saying that EAD and probably the application may be denied! I thought that it is required at the later stages of the GC process.
Now please share the secret of HOW you got a visascreen in 1 week! I'm flabbergasted. This is the first I heard. Please share
2011 Bara Fata Peugeot 307. Tuning
bskrishna
07-11 12:04 PM
heres the thing..we have been talking about the 2004 hump for eb2 for a while now. if you download the perm data from 2005 you will see only 7000+ PERM approvals for India. this included a significant number of EB3 other worker categories like pipe welder, cook, etc ( i am assuming they were eb3 -other worker...correct me if i m wrong)
this was the breakdown per month for perm 2005
March-1
April -13
May-72
June-324
July-351
Aug-833
Sept-1172
Oct-1212
Nov-1541
Dec-1771
7290 - includes everybody - eb2, eb3, eb3 other workers
the whole question was the hump of 2004-march2005
ithis is the first time since when retrogression started on oct 1 2005, that the dates have moved beyond 2005.
do we have any such nos for 04? ideally 05 EB2 should buzz through adjudication in less then a quarter.
this was the breakdown per month for perm 2005
March-1
April -13
May-72
June-324
July-351
Aug-833
Sept-1172
Oct-1212
Nov-1541
Dec-1771
7290 - includes everybody - eb2, eb3, eb3 other workers
the whole question was the hump of 2004-march2005
ithis is the first time since when retrogression started on oct 1 2005, that the dates have moved beyond 2005.
do we have any such nos for 04? ideally 05 EB2 should buzz through adjudication in less then a quarter.
more...
JunRN
08-11 01:09 PM
Visa Screen is needed to adjust your status. It is always better to have your visa screen ready. USCIS will send an RFE for that. However, while AOS is pending, EAD can be issued.
anilsal
07-16 12:37 PM
have posted info on this campaign to their chapters. I am sure this high-five campaign will be a great success. Keep the fire on.
more...
NKR
01-05 11:28 PM
Ok then, why did you come to America to study at Duke? Why did you spend all this money? The reason our people invest crores of rupees in American education is that it is better.
You people seem to be too nationalistic. Even with the comments about quotas. Affiirmative action with 52% of all seats being reserved based on caste? You call this fair?
Yes, it is fair, this fairness has come after many centuries of oppression, in fact this fairness was long overdue.
Now if we want to disagree with each other we can do it by sending private messages instead of indulging in mudslinging and degrading India even more.
�I can tell you for a fact that Universities in America are much better than those in India. This is why I came here �.� Now whom are you trying to fool?.. You came here because with your IQ you could not get into top universities in India. �I went to an average university here which I could afford� .You are telling us that you could not afford education in India but you could here?...
You people seem to be too nationalistic. Even with the comments about quotas. Affiirmative action with 52% of all seats being reserved based on caste? You call this fair?
Yes, it is fair, this fairness has come after many centuries of oppression, in fact this fairness was long overdue.
Now if we want to disagree with each other we can do it by sending private messages instead of indulging in mudslinging and degrading India even more.
�I can tell you for a fact that Universities in America are much better than those in India. This is why I came here �.� Now whom are you trying to fool?.. You came here because with your IQ you could not get into top universities in India. �I went to an average university here which I could afford� .You are telling us that you could not afford education in India but you could here?...
2010 Peugeot 307 Tuning A1.jpg
john2255
07-21 12:14 AM
That is exactly what I thought as well. Which is why I'm confused by posters ranting about "people who voted against SKIL bill" and getting their knickers in a twist
Correct me if I am wrong, ---but I thought that "This Ammendment" was attached to a defence bill. I dont think that it was the ammendment that was shot down, but the whole defence bill.
Kindly note,
This particular Cornyn amendment (S.Amdt. 2339) offered to attach to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), but the motion was failed due to lack of 5 votes.(55 YEAS and 40 NAYs. Require 3/5 majority) HR.2669 is passed by both Senate and house and sent for conference to resolve the difference between house and senate versions and president is sure to sign the bill and thus would become the law in another few days. This amendment does not have anything to do with defence bill or with SKILL bill. Following is the actions taken by congress of HR 2669.
IF THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED WE WOULD HAVE GOT ATLEAST 240,000 RECAPTURED, UNUSED VISAS OF PREVIOUS YEARS IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS.
H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
House Reports: 110-210
MAJOR ACTIONS:
6/12/2007 Introduced in House
6/25/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
Correct me if I am wrong, ---but I thought that "This Ammendment" was attached to a defence bill. I dont think that it was the ammendment that was shot down, but the whole defence bill.
Kindly note,
This particular Cornyn amendment (S.Amdt. 2339) offered to attach to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), but the motion was failed due to lack of 5 votes.(55 YEAS and 40 NAYs. Require 3/5 majority) HR.2669 is passed by both Senate and house and sent for conference to resolve the difference between house and senate versions and president is sure to sign the bill and thus would become the law in another few days. This amendment does not have anything to do with defence bill or with SKILL bill. Following is the actions taken by congress of HR 2669.
IF THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED WE WOULD HAVE GOT ATLEAST 240,000 RECAPTURED, UNUSED VISAS OF PREVIOUS YEARS IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS.
H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
House Reports: 110-210
MAJOR ACTIONS:
6/12/2007 Introduced in House
6/25/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
more...
snathan
02-13 08:39 PM
get lost. If you contributed, thats enough. Just do your job and others will do theirs.
This is the message I have got from this guy....
I have contributed more than $500 to IV. I am not sure I want green card anymore. Thanks.
Just another junk in IV
This is the message I have got from this guy....
I have contributed more than $500 to IV. I am not sure I want green card anymore. Thanks.
Just another junk in IV
hair Grilles without PEUGEOT LOGO
eb3_nepa
07-14 01:10 PM
Done!
Thanks Johnnybhai.
Thanks Johnnybhai.
more...
shantanup
06-24 10:00 AM
Refer to the following thread. You may get some points.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19630
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19630
hot Cromados Peugeot 307
asanghi
01-03 02:00 PM
More than 4 years ago when I started the process I really was looking forward to getting a GC and eventually citizenship. But a lot has changed in the last 4 years. GC process has become much harder (after 4 years I am yet to file for 140 and 485). At the same time the economy back home is booming. So the financial incentive to go thru the long process is really going down by the day.
More than the financial factor, I have gradually started realizing that no matter how many friends I make here its never the same as having a large family network that provides for social stability for each family. Also, I have started observing aging indian couples in US who came in 60's and 70's. They look pretty lonely and sad. I guess the question I am asking myself today is, is finanical success today worth the social loss I will face once I retire?
PS: Does anyone know how to turn a thread into a poll?
When my labor approval came, I was very happy and even bought a house. But then retrogression happened. Now I am really tired of it, besides I only can watch my nephews nieces growing through webcam only. My brother sisters are getting older, and I feel I am drifting away from them because I hardly get much time to spend with them even when I go to India. So GC or no GC, I am going back.
Now I am here for 2 reasons, my wife is studying, I am stuck with a house. My wife's studies are almost over. So as soon as I can break even on my house, I will go back. Period.
My wife couldn't get an internship this year due to not having GC. She has converted to F1 after waiting for a long time, and hopefully this year will get an H1. So GC has no real value for me now. Only value GC has for me is that I can live more independently switch employers, experiment with startup ideas etc. while I am here.
More than the financial factor, I have gradually started realizing that no matter how many friends I make here its never the same as having a large family network that provides for social stability for each family. Also, I have started observing aging indian couples in US who came in 60's and 70's. They look pretty lonely and sad. I guess the question I am asking myself today is, is finanical success today worth the social loss I will face once I retire?
PS: Does anyone know how to turn a thread into a poll?
When my labor approval came, I was very happy and even bought a house. But then retrogression happened. Now I am really tired of it, besides I only can watch my nephews nieces growing through webcam only. My brother sisters are getting older, and I feel I am drifting away from them because I hardly get much time to spend with them even when I go to India. So GC or no GC, I am going back.
Now I am here for 2 reasons, my wife is studying, I am stuck with a house. My wife's studies are almost over. So as soon as I can break even on my house, I will go back. Period.
My wife couldn't get an internship this year due to not having GC. She has converted to F1 after waiting for a long time, and hopefully this year will get an H1. So GC has no real value for me now. Only value GC has for me is that I can live more independently switch employers, experiment with startup ideas etc. while I am here.
more...
house [peugeot 307] préparation
ItIsNotFunny
03-12 10:13 PM
I already did. I just dont like this DONOR based thread idea. for reasons already stated.
Why reddog is not marked as "Donor" yet?
Why reddog is not marked as "Donor" yet?
tattoo Parachoques delantero Peugeot
mirage
04-01 12:10 PM
It is time now we ask USCIS about this information. More than DOS or DOL it is the USCIS who has all this information in their bags like how many applications they have from high chargeability countries, of which year and which categories. So we stop predicting and be ready for the real....
With all the revenue and system they have, do you think this is so tough to streamline? I doubt.
They can, at the minimum, have the cases in sequence, process per FIFO, control PD movements logically. The minimum they can do, easily.
With all the revenue and system they have, do you think this is so tough to streamline? I doubt.
They can, at the minimum, have the cases in sequence, process per FIFO, control PD movements logically. The minimum they can do, easily.
more...
pictures peugeot 307 Tuning
Canadian_Dream
06-02 08:18 PM
You are correct, it only uses I-140 application as a basis of setting the cut-off (Not I-485).
In my opinion:
Date of Introduction: May 15 2007
Effective Date: Oct 01 2008
Scenarios:
Scenario 1: I-140 Filed after Introduction and Approved before effective date. These cases are eligible for Immigrant Visa, whenever available.
Scenario 2: I-140 Filed after Introduction and not approved on the effective date. These cases have to refile.
Scenario 3: I-140 Filed before Introduction and not approved on the effective date. These cases are eligible for Immigrant Visa, whenever available.
Scenario 4: I-140 not filed becasue of backlogged labor. They retain the priority date but have to restart in the new system, whatever that means.
Only bad scenario is 2 and 4. The other bad aspect is reduced supply of immigrant visa 90,000.
Hey Canadian Dream:
I know things might change , i wish this law doesnt pass through at all. But in its form this is interpretation of major members and attorneys in current stage. Please correct me if i am wrong.
I might agree with your conclusion of start date, but Now coming to to cases :
Petetion for an employment based visa = I 140 , that were filed prior to the date of intro ( for our sake its Oct 2008 or May 15 2007 ) that were pending or approved , shall be treated as if such provision remained effective.
An approved petition may server as basis for issuance of an immigrant visa.
and for all people who are still in Labor stage will preserve their priority date.
Now based on this , if you have filed an I140 before the date of enactment what ever it might one should be fine. Once dates becomes current and I140 approved one can file for 485 in previous system.
I dont see any conclusion based on 485 is approved or not its just adjustment of status once PD become current , i think its all 140 that determines you are approved as an immigrant or not.
===========================
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
In my opinion:
Date of Introduction: May 15 2007
Effective Date: Oct 01 2008
Scenarios:
Scenario 1: I-140 Filed after Introduction and Approved before effective date. These cases are eligible for Immigrant Visa, whenever available.
Scenario 2: I-140 Filed after Introduction and not approved on the effective date. These cases have to refile.
Scenario 3: I-140 Filed before Introduction and not approved on the effective date. These cases are eligible for Immigrant Visa, whenever available.
Scenario 4: I-140 not filed becasue of backlogged labor. They retain the priority date but have to restart in the new system, whatever that means.
Only bad scenario is 2 and 4. The other bad aspect is reduced supply of immigrant visa 90,000.
Hey Canadian Dream:
I know things might change , i wish this law doesnt pass through at all. But in its form this is interpretation of major members and attorneys in current stage. Please correct me if i am wrong.
I might agree with your conclusion of start date, but Now coming to to cases :
Petetion for an employment based visa = I 140 , that were filed prior to the date of intro ( for our sake its Oct 2008 or May 15 2007 ) that were pending or approved , shall be treated as if such provision remained effective.
An approved petition may server as basis for issuance of an immigrant visa.
and for all people who are still in Labor stage will preserve their priority date.
Now based on this , if you have filed an I140 before the date of enactment what ever it might one should be fine. Once dates becomes current and I140 approved one can file for 485 in previous system.
I dont see any conclusion based on 485 is approved or not its just adjustment of status once PD become current , i think its all 140 that determines you are approved as an immigrant or not.
===========================
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
dresses Peugeot 307 - TUNING ,auto
chanduv23
12-01 11:49 AM
Another soft LUD on the 485 today - this is the 4th soft LUD since 11/24.
Another soft LUD on the 140, 765, 131 - second soft LUD since 11/24.
you may likely be getting an RFE or probably close to ur approval :)
Another soft LUD on the 140, 765, 131 - second soft LUD since 11/24.
you may likely be getting an RFE or probably close to ur approval :)
more...
makeup peugeot 307 tuning
![peugeot 307 tuning. [peugeot 307] préparation](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uN-XEdSVsG3C8LT_rNYTy2qjY-nuNM0Sm9nNS4DzYXM2bS30xRAYYz9KQRJcilJuqvVGh7ZnX-3L46pcidbI1wvNBB_BK3bFegmBYFv4Sx810XHKLFYW7J7kH4F52NR6WcBw=s0-d "[peugeot 307] préparation")
immivjj
09-09 10:41 PM
Just contributed $200.
Google order: #752574347294392
Google order: #752574347294392
girlfriend Peugeot 307 HDI 1.6 109 109
wellwisher02
04-01 08:46 AM
Wow, so you're telling me be happy as somebody else is in pain now ???
Their problems doesn't make me smile here. I want solutions to my problems.
If you need solutions to your problems, you need to act professionallly as all other IV members do. Please stop throwing tantrums and also mind your P's and Q's when you utter expletives against USCIS. Will you be brave enough (if not foolhardy enough) to reproduce whatever you said here in a letter and send it out to the USCIS? Trust me, you'll not since you'd act politely and professionally to make out your case. We expect you to act with decorum when you discuss pertinent issues in IV forum.
Their problems doesn't make me smile here. I want solutions to my problems.
If you need solutions to your problems, you need to act professionallly as all other IV members do. Please stop throwing tantrums and also mind your P's and Q's when you utter expletives against USCIS. Will you be brave enough (if not foolhardy enough) to reproduce whatever you said here in a letter and send it out to the USCIS? Trust me, you'll not since you'd act politely and professionally to make out your case. We expect you to act with decorum when you discuss pertinent issues in IV forum.
hairstyles Peugeot 307 HB 6/2006 1,4 16V
ganguteli
03-12 06:19 PM
This is nothing but a typical desi mentality coming out from all of us. We all want to get everything for free or at a discount. Each dollar is saved to be transferred to India or to buy larger flat screen TV than our friends at home. :)
BharatPremi
11-09 02:12 PM
Thanks to the glorious service of the Atlanta center :mad: I missed the I-485 bus by 7 days( Labor cleared on Aug end ). Many people with later PD's got cleared from the Chicago PERM center . Now I just watch as all members get their EAD's and AP's while I wait with nothing but hope and watch legislation after legislation fail in the senate and house , and the letters flying all over the place .
I remember my past by reading your sad story. Though I had different cause for my tragedy. In Year 2000 November my then employer filed RIR labor and I got approval in January 12th 2001 and Same day HR filed my I-140. On January 22nd during companywide mass lay off I was slashed.. Again go through one more lay off in year 2002 with different employer and still waiting for GC(After filing 4th application in year 2003, Rotting in PBEC for almost 4 years)... Best Luck to you.
I remember my past by reading your sad story. Though I had different cause for my tragedy. In Year 2000 November my then employer filed RIR labor and I got approval in January 12th 2001 and Same day HR filed my I-140. On January 22nd during companywide mass lay off I was slashed.. Again go through one more lay off in year 2002 with different employer and still waiting for GC(After filing 4th application in year 2003, Rotting in PBEC for almost 4 years)... Best Luck to you.
Macaca
09-12 07:35 PM
Macaca-
If only wait times were as little as 2 yrs and 7 yrs...I might not even be fighting!!!
"Currently it takes 7+ years (after 2+ years on student visa) to become a resident."
This is not true in most cases. The F1 might be for 2 yrs minimum + 1 year EAD + at least 2 yrs on H1B before the GC process starts. Then its 7+ years...
So overall, we are talking 10+ years to get permanant residency in a majority of cases.
"Skilled immigrants have waited patiently for 2+ years"
Are we just talking about 2 yrs to see if there is going to be some reform?
If you don't want to get into the trouble of debating how many years, just say that it is unreasonable....
The best solution is to write the years you spent on F1 and H1B. You can add your additional pains also.
This will change each email also.
If only wait times were as little as 2 yrs and 7 yrs...I might not even be fighting!!!
"Currently it takes 7+ years (after 2+ years on student visa) to become a resident."
This is not true in most cases. The F1 might be for 2 yrs minimum + 1 year EAD + at least 2 yrs on H1B before the GC process starts. Then its 7+ years...
So overall, we are talking 10+ years to get permanant residency in a majority of cases.
"Skilled immigrants have waited patiently for 2+ years"
Are we just talking about 2 yrs to see if there is going to be some reform?
If you don't want to get into the trouble of debating how many years, just say that it is unreasonable....
The best solution is to write the years you spent on F1 and H1B. You can add your additional pains also.
This will change each email also.
No comments:
Post a Comment