sriramkalyan
12-19 02:26 PM
Looks like time to shutdown IV site..
I suggested long time back .. do not allow anyone to start the threads ..
Only allow users who are active contributors to IV budget.
Now this site is becoming like yahoo chats ...
God help Immigration community ...
EB3 is not moving ...EB2 dead stop ...
I suggested long time back .. do not allow anyone to start the threads ..
Only allow users who are active contributors to IV budget.
Now this site is becoming like yahoo chats ...
God help Immigration community ...
EB3 is not moving ...EB2 dead stop ...
wallpaper the chicago basket bulls
gc03
05-17 10:56 AM
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Read on full (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)
Should we thank CNN Writer Lou Dobbs?
Read on full (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)
Should we thank CNN Writer Lou Dobbs?
anilsal
11-11 11:53 PM
Totally right. Whenever anybody mentions immigration anywhere (be it in your neighborhood, streets, bus/train stations or your companies), just find out what the person understands about the immigration issue. The person will surely talk about illegal imm/amnesty.
That is when you educate the person about legal immigration.
There will be people like Lou, Joe Scarxxx etc who will muddle up our whole existence by associating our immigration with the ones from the southern borders.
We have no comments on illegal immigration/amnesty.
That is when you educate the person about legal immigration.
There will be people like Lou, Joe Scarxxx etc who will muddle up our whole existence by associating our immigration with the ones from the southern borders.
We have no comments on illegal immigration/amnesty.
2011 Event Logo. Event: Chicago
abracadabra102
12-27 12:24 PM
Alisa,
Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to have a decent exchange of thoughts with you. I agree with you partly that 'non-state' actors are responsible and not Zardari Govt.. But Who created the non-state actors in the first place? Instead of paying unemployment benefits, who offered them job portability to Kashmir? Their H1B shouldnt have been renewed at all after they came on bench. How can a parent not be responsible for the errant child? The world wants to neutralize the errant child....but for the parent a child is a child after all and that too the one that served its interests once. If this child is abandoned, can future child ( with same objective) be created with the same ease?
Those are the questions that are haunting many Indians on the forums.
But I salute you and other folks for keeping this conversation civil.
Kudos,
GCisaDawg
Nice job and you and Alisa started a good thoughtful conversation.
I agree that war is not the best option but should not be discounted outright.
We are thinking too much of Pakistani nuclear weapons (and to some extent India's nuclear weapons as well). When Pakistan and India last tested these (1998), many experts thought these were fizzles. I could dig up one article that hints that 1998 tests are a possible fizzles.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6037992.stm
2. N. Korea tested nukes in 2006 and are definitely fizzles and these are built using the same techniques used by pakistan (AQ Khan actively involved).
3. The other important aspect of nukes is the delivery. Pakistan's capability is suspect here as well. It is not sufficient just to have warheads and missiles (made in China), they should be tied together with proper trigger mechanism and it is uncertain if China delivered this technology to Pakistan or not.
With points 1, 2 and 3, it is reasonable to assume Pakistan can not take out India even with first strike and with nuclear weapons. I definitely think India's nukes are more potent. Assuming Indian nukes are just as bad as Pakistani nukes, finally it boils down to conventional war, and Pakistan can never beat India in a long drawn out war. The simple reason is that, India has a robust manufacturing base and much more robust economy and can continue to produce weapons and support war, where as Pakistan has to stop the moment it runs out of the weapons it bought fron US and China. Pakistan can not expect military supplies from any country once the war starts.
The only way Pakistan can win over India is to destroy India completely with nuclear first strike and it would have done that already if it had the capability.
If there is a war between India and Pakistan, India wins that war with or without nukes, period. So nukes should not be a deterrent for India going to war with Pakistan.
The other point every one is making is that wars can damage India economically. Not necessarily. Look at history and you will see that many countries prospered after wars (eg. US, UK, Germany, Japan etc. post WW-II).
There is one more good reason for India-Pakistan war. The major reason for failed democracy in Pakistan is its military. A war between India and Pakistan has one outcome, India's victory and destruction/weakening of Pakistan army. With weakened military, Pakistan has a chance to develop as a democratic nation, and that is good for the entire region. Proof? look at what happened after Indo-Pak war of 1971 and Indira Gandhi created Bangladesh. There was resurgence of democracy, with Bhutto becoming prime minister until that crook Zia-ul-Huq murdered him.
But I doubt any of this will happen now. I wish Indira Gandhi is Prime minister and leading India now.
Thanks for your posts. I'm glad to have a decent exchange of thoughts with you. I agree with you partly that 'non-state' actors are responsible and not Zardari Govt.. But Who created the non-state actors in the first place? Instead of paying unemployment benefits, who offered them job portability to Kashmir? Their H1B shouldnt have been renewed at all after they came on bench. How can a parent not be responsible for the errant child? The world wants to neutralize the errant child....but for the parent a child is a child after all and that too the one that served its interests once. If this child is abandoned, can future child ( with same objective) be created with the same ease?
Those are the questions that are haunting many Indians on the forums.
But I salute you and other folks for keeping this conversation civil.
Kudos,
GCisaDawg
Nice job and you and Alisa started a good thoughtful conversation.
I agree that war is not the best option but should not be discounted outright.
We are thinking too much of Pakistani nuclear weapons (and to some extent India's nuclear weapons as well). When Pakistan and India last tested these (1998), many experts thought these were fizzles. I could dig up one article that hints that 1998 tests are a possible fizzles.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6037992.stm
2. N. Korea tested nukes in 2006 and are definitely fizzles and these are built using the same techniques used by pakistan (AQ Khan actively involved).
3. The other important aspect of nukes is the delivery. Pakistan's capability is suspect here as well. It is not sufficient just to have warheads and missiles (made in China), they should be tied together with proper trigger mechanism and it is uncertain if China delivered this technology to Pakistan or not.
With points 1, 2 and 3, it is reasonable to assume Pakistan can not take out India even with first strike and with nuclear weapons. I definitely think India's nukes are more potent. Assuming Indian nukes are just as bad as Pakistani nukes, finally it boils down to conventional war, and Pakistan can never beat India in a long drawn out war. The simple reason is that, India has a robust manufacturing base and much more robust economy and can continue to produce weapons and support war, where as Pakistan has to stop the moment it runs out of the weapons it bought fron US and China. Pakistan can not expect military supplies from any country once the war starts.
The only way Pakistan can win over India is to destroy India completely with nuclear first strike and it would have done that already if it had the capability.
If there is a war between India and Pakistan, India wins that war with or without nukes, period. So nukes should not be a deterrent for India going to war with Pakistan.
The other point every one is making is that wars can damage India economically. Not necessarily. Look at history and you will see that many countries prospered after wars (eg. US, UK, Germany, Japan etc. post WW-II).
There is one more good reason for India-Pakistan war. The major reason for failed democracy in Pakistan is its military. A war between India and Pakistan has one outcome, India's victory and destruction/weakening of Pakistan army. With weakened military, Pakistan has a chance to develop as a democratic nation, and that is good for the entire region. Proof? look at what happened after Indo-Pak war of 1971 and Indira Gandhi created Bangladesh. There was resurgence of democracy, with Bhutto becoming prime minister until that crook Zia-ul-Huq murdered him.
But I doubt any of this will happen now. I wish Indira Gandhi is Prime minister and leading India now.
more...
file485
07-08 09:07 PM
I have been here 11 years. 4 different employers.
I have all my returns and W2's
why in the world would i keep every paystub?
makes no sense. of course little does.
UN thanks for the comments.
any predictions on where we are headed? my vested interest is in EB2 india...
btw why is everyone presuming that the 60,000 approvals went to India and China? EB3 ROW is retrogressed- all the extra numbers could have gone there. that would in any case be all the better for india/china in the longer term- the faster that backlog is finished, the greater the chance india/china lines will show meaningful movement.
also did you notice the cantwell-kyl compromise amendment in the failed CIR 2007 had a provision for 485 filing w/o visa numbers current?
paskal..
seriously thinking about sending an email to Oppenheim, Charles to consider moving the dates in the bulletin liberally so no visas r lost each year..before there is another debacle with the October bulletin..
maybe he is the right person to hear our misery..but not sure if they even consider our emails and tell us not to teach them what to do..
I have all my returns and W2's
why in the world would i keep every paystub?
makes no sense. of course little does.
UN thanks for the comments.
any predictions on where we are headed? my vested interest is in EB2 india...
btw why is everyone presuming that the 60,000 approvals went to India and China? EB3 ROW is retrogressed- all the extra numbers could have gone there. that would in any case be all the better for india/china in the longer term- the faster that backlog is finished, the greater the chance india/china lines will show meaningful movement.
also did you notice the cantwell-kyl compromise amendment in the failed CIR 2007 had a provision for 485 filing w/o visa numbers current?
paskal..
seriously thinking about sending an email to Oppenheim, Charles to consider moving the dates in the bulletin liberally so no visas r lost each year..before there is another debacle with the October bulletin..
maybe he is the right person to hear our misery..but not sure if they even consider our emails and tell us not to teach them what to do..
NeverEndingH1
12-17 02:32 PM
Marphad,
But none of their postings (jaspreetsinghgandhi & tabletpc) had your kind of religious-politics in it!
This is exactly why terrorist and their supporters like antulay are succeeding...
Ek aur double standard...
You definitely didn't think about server hard drive space and your most valuable time when you posted these:
Medical Insurance:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=221246#post221246
DOW is down - ha ha ha:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=186584#post186584
But none of their postings (jaspreetsinghgandhi & tabletpc) had your kind of religious-politics in it!
This is exactly why terrorist and their supporters like antulay are succeeding...
Ek aur double standard...
You definitely didn't think about server hard drive space and your most valuable time when you posted these:
Medical Insurance:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=221246#post221246
DOW is down - ha ha ha:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=186584#post186584
more...
Macaca
12-28 08:03 AM
House Members Spent $20.3M on Mailings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122700903.html?hpid=sec-politics) By DENNIS CONRAD | Associated Press, Dec 28, 2007
WASHINGTON -- U.S. House members spent $20.3 million in tax money last year to send constituents what's often the government equivalent of junk mail _ meeting announcements, tips on car care and job interviews, surveys on public policy and just plain bragging.
They sent nearly 116 million pieces of mail in all, many of them glossy productions filled with flattering photos and lists of the latest roads and bridges the lawmaker has brought home to the district, an Associated Press review of public records shows.
Some offered advice on topics one would more commonly expect to see in a consumer-advice column.
"Keep your car properly maintained" to improve mileage, suggested Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., in a newsletter on how to deal with rising energy prices.
Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., offered tips on home improvements.
And Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., who lost her primary race last year, sent out a taxpayer-funded newsletter a few months before the election that included this simple observation:
"Convicted felons can vote," she said, if "your" prison sentence has been served, parole or probation completed and fines paid. While campaigning, McKinney, who is black, noted that blacks make up a disproportionately large share of the prison population, which she said dilutes their voting strength.
A dozen House members spent more than $133,000 each to send 9.8 million pieces of mass mailings. Total cost? $1.8 million.
Sometimes the lawmakers' taxpayer funded mailings topped what they paid for direct mail through their campaign funds.
Of the 64 House members with at least $100,000 in taxpayer-funded mailing expenses _ and overwhelmingly for mass mailings _ 42 were Republicans and 22 were Democrats, the AP review found.
In sharp contrast, 59 lawmakers in the 435-member House _ 35 Republicans and 24 Democrats _ spent nothing on mass mailings. They tended to be the more experienced House members, often with 14 or more years of service.
Mass mailings cannot be blatantly political, but they still can have political benefits, said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers' Union, which has condemned mass mailings.
"A taxpayer-financed mailing doesn't have to say 're-elect me' to have an impact on voters," Sepp said. "A glossy newsletter splashed with the incumbent's achievements in Congress can build useful credentials a lawmaker can take with him to the ballot box. The franking privilege is one of the main cogs in Congress' PR machine."
Franking, practiced since the early days of the republic, lets members of Congress send mail with just a signature where the postage would normally be affixed. Although the mailings are regulated by a congressional commission to guard against overt political appeals and cannot go out within 90 days of an election, they still sometimes take a dig at the opposition.
In a June 2006 newsletter, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., noted that under the Republican majority, Congress had passed tax cuts that "benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working families."
Stark has been a regular among the biggest users of the congressional franking privilege. For 2006, his mass mailings alone cost $172,357, an amount large enough to rank him among the top congressional mailers. House documents reported his overall mailing costs to be about $37,000 less. The AP received no explanation for the apparent discrepancy from spokesmen for Stark, the House Administration Committee and House administration staff.
Some lawmakers defend the newsletters as a vital way of communicating with constituents.
"One of the biggest complaints my constituents had (with) my predecessor was that they never knew what was going on in Washington," said Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla. "They never had the opportunity to do surveys, etc. I promised I would communicate with them regularly."
Brown-Waite is one of the biggest users of bulk mail, with 657,951 pieces at a cost of $129,428 last year. That surpassed the approximately $110,000 her campaign spent on direct mailings and related costs.
One taxpayer-funded mailing featured a picture of her and the headline: "Medicare Prescription Drug Update: The Time to Act is Now." Another, entitled "Constituent Service Guide for the 5th District," included a survey and information about how to obtain U.S. flags, assistance from federal agencies and an appointment to a military academy.
The House Democratic Caucus encourages members to use the mailings to communicate with constituents, spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said. She said it was a good way for congressmen to focus on an issue or, if survey questions are used, get a handle on what constituents are thinking.
That argument doesn't persuade Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., who said he has never used the mailings in 13 years in Congress. "It's a waste of taxpayers' money," he said. "I don't believe in this self-promotion."
LaHood argues that franking should be used only to answer constituent mail. He has repeatedly introduced bills to ban mass mailings and just as often the legislation dies in committee.
For the House and Senate combined, the cost of taxpayer-paid mailings, including mass mailings, letters to individuals and groups of up to 500 people, was $34.3 million for fiscal year 2006, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. In 1988, before more restrictions were imposed on the use of mailings, the figure was more than three times larger, $113.3 million.
The biggest senders in the AP analysis included freshmen in tight re-election fights and veterans who coasted to victory.
Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., had the most pieces of mass mailings: 1,257,972. His mass mailings' cost of $171,286 was among the highest in the House, as was the overall cost of his franked mail, at $177,706.
Murphy, who advised constituents to maintain cars, was one of the House leaders in sending out bulk mail, with 1,003,836 pieces. The price tag: $165,650.
Among legislative leaders, the biggest spender was Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., who last fall became chairman of the House GOP Conference. He spent $133,053 to mail 844,336 pieces.
Other leaders in the last Congress and the current one were not big users.
The cost of postage is not the only expense for taxpayers. Printing and reproduction can add tens of thousands of dollars to a mailing's cost. The printing cost for one mailing from McCotter was $30,259.
There is a practical limit on how much can be spent on mailings.
Funding comes from a congressman's office budget, which ranges from $1.2 million to $1.4 million for payroll and other expenses. The more spent on mass mailings, the less money is available for such needs as staff, salaries and district offices.
Senators can also send franked mail, but the amount for each senator is specific and generally based on the number of addresses in a senator's state. At no point may it exceed $50,000 a year for mass mailings. For fiscal year 2004, overall mail allocations ranged from $31,746 to $298,850.
Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who mailed 906,788 pieces last year and won re-election with 60 percent of the vote, sees the mailings as helping him do his job.
"Ours is a representative government, requiring an active dialogue between elected officials and those they serve," Stearns said in a statement.
Mike Stokke, a political aide to recently resigned Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., when he was House speaker, said he would advise congressmen to send out mailings when they've fulfilled an important promise, such as getting money for a bridge in the district.
WASHINGTON -- U.S. House members spent $20.3 million in tax money last year to send constituents what's often the government equivalent of junk mail _ meeting announcements, tips on car care and job interviews, surveys on public policy and just plain bragging.
They sent nearly 116 million pieces of mail in all, many of them glossy productions filled with flattering photos and lists of the latest roads and bridges the lawmaker has brought home to the district, an Associated Press review of public records shows.
Some offered advice on topics one would more commonly expect to see in a consumer-advice column.
"Keep your car properly maintained" to improve mileage, suggested Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., in a newsletter on how to deal with rising energy prices.
Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., offered tips on home improvements.
And Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., who lost her primary race last year, sent out a taxpayer-funded newsletter a few months before the election that included this simple observation:
"Convicted felons can vote," she said, if "your" prison sentence has been served, parole or probation completed and fines paid. While campaigning, McKinney, who is black, noted that blacks make up a disproportionately large share of the prison population, which she said dilutes their voting strength.
A dozen House members spent more than $133,000 each to send 9.8 million pieces of mass mailings. Total cost? $1.8 million.
Sometimes the lawmakers' taxpayer funded mailings topped what they paid for direct mail through their campaign funds.
Of the 64 House members with at least $100,000 in taxpayer-funded mailing expenses _ and overwhelmingly for mass mailings _ 42 were Republicans and 22 were Democrats, the AP review found.
In sharp contrast, 59 lawmakers in the 435-member House _ 35 Republicans and 24 Democrats _ spent nothing on mass mailings. They tended to be the more experienced House members, often with 14 or more years of service.
Mass mailings cannot be blatantly political, but they still can have political benefits, said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers' Union, which has condemned mass mailings.
"A taxpayer-financed mailing doesn't have to say 're-elect me' to have an impact on voters," Sepp said. "A glossy newsletter splashed with the incumbent's achievements in Congress can build useful credentials a lawmaker can take with him to the ballot box. The franking privilege is one of the main cogs in Congress' PR machine."
Franking, practiced since the early days of the republic, lets members of Congress send mail with just a signature where the postage would normally be affixed. Although the mailings are regulated by a congressional commission to guard against overt political appeals and cannot go out within 90 days of an election, they still sometimes take a dig at the opposition.
In a June 2006 newsletter, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., noted that under the Republican majority, Congress had passed tax cuts that "benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working families."
Stark has been a regular among the biggest users of the congressional franking privilege. For 2006, his mass mailings alone cost $172,357, an amount large enough to rank him among the top congressional mailers. House documents reported his overall mailing costs to be about $37,000 less. The AP received no explanation for the apparent discrepancy from spokesmen for Stark, the House Administration Committee and House administration staff.
Some lawmakers defend the newsletters as a vital way of communicating with constituents.
"One of the biggest complaints my constituents had (with) my predecessor was that they never knew what was going on in Washington," said Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla. "They never had the opportunity to do surveys, etc. I promised I would communicate with them regularly."
Brown-Waite is one of the biggest users of bulk mail, with 657,951 pieces at a cost of $129,428 last year. That surpassed the approximately $110,000 her campaign spent on direct mailings and related costs.
One taxpayer-funded mailing featured a picture of her and the headline: "Medicare Prescription Drug Update: The Time to Act is Now." Another, entitled "Constituent Service Guide for the 5th District," included a survey and information about how to obtain U.S. flags, assistance from federal agencies and an appointment to a military academy.
The House Democratic Caucus encourages members to use the mailings to communicate with constituents, spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said. She said it was a good way for congressmen to focus on an issue or, if survey questions are used, get a handle on what constituents are thinking.
That argument doesn't persuade Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., who said he has never used the mailings in 13 years in Congress. "It's a waste of taxpayers' money," he said. "I don't believe in this self-promotion."
LaHood argues that franking should be used only to answer constituent mail. He has repeatedly introduced bills to ban mass mailings and just as often the legislation dies in committee.
For the House and Senate combined, the cost of taxpayer-paid mailings, including mass mailings, letters to individuals and groups of up to 500 people, was $34.3 million for fiscal year 2006, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. In 1988, before more restrictions were imposed on the use of mailings, the figure was more than three times larger, $113.3 million.
The biggest senders in the AP analysis included freshmen in tight re-election fights and veterans who coasted to victory.
Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., had the most pieces of mass mailings: 1,257,972. His mass mailings' cost of $171,286 was among the highest in the House, as was the overall cost of his franked mail, at $177,706.
Murphy, who advised constituents to maintain cars, was one of the House leaders in sending out bulk mail, with 1,003,836 pieces. The price tag: $165,650.
Among legislative leaders, the biggest spender was Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., who last fall became chairman of the House GOP Conference. He spent $133,053 to mail 844,336 pieces.
Other leaders in the last Congress and the current one were not big users.
The cost of postage is not the only expense for taxpayers. Printing and reproduction can add tens of thousands of dollars to a mailing's cost. The printing cost for one mailing from McCotter was $30,259.
There is a practical limit on how much can be spent on mailings.
Funding comes from a congressman's office budget, which ranges from $1.2 million to $1.4 million for payroll and other expenses. The more spent on mass mailings, the less money is available for such needs as staff, salaries and district offices.
Senators can also send franked mail, but the amount for each senator is specific and generally based on the number of addresses in a senator's state. At no point may it exceed $50,000 a year for mass mailings. For fiscal year 2004, overall mail allocations ranged from $31,746 to $298,850.
Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who mailed 906,788 pieces last year and won re-election with 60 percent of the vote, sees the mailings as helping him do his job.
"Ours is a representative government, requiring an active dialogue between elected officials and those they serve," Stearns said in a statement.
Mike Stokke, a political aide to recently resigned Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., when he was House speaker, said he would advise congressmen to send out mailings when they've fulfilled an important promise, such as getting money for a bridge in the district.
2010 tattoo In #39;Chicago Code#39;
akred
04-06 08:51 PM
This bill seems to require a labor certification like process for every H1B extension. All of us who have gone through labor certification know how painful the initial data collection is when it comes to proving unavailability of US workers. How many employers will want to or be able to get a labor certification like process done for every H1 extension?
more...
suavesandeep
06-05 11:53 AM
Good analysis there dude!
While no one can predict future, the least we could do is prepare ourselves for good and bad times.
IMO people should look at purchasing only if these conditions apply:
1) Current rent payment is more than mortgage+prop tax+other monthly fees for new home
2) Homes in relatively stable areas (where unemployment is not too high, diversity of job opportunities)
3) Homes whose prices have not risen significantly in the past 5yrs (anything > 40% since 2001..please stay away)
4) Planning to stay in the house for a MIN 2yrs
One would argue why buy now if it might go lower...
if above conditions are met..it would be a relatively safe buy and above all...people remember... time does not wait for anyone...we grow older everyday..make a decision regarding what we need for us and our family within the reasonable limits...go for it and enjoy it..
an old friend of mine always says...live life..love life...be life
and i believe she is right..
I think we are in unprecedented times...Who would have thought real estate would ever crash ?. At least i never saw this coming and i guess most of those smart investors/economists did not see this coming.
My friend in bay area bought his house 3 years back in a decent school district and he is more than 150K under water. He is going to be stuck in the house now till his house appreciates to the original principal. If he wants to move out of the house he will have to pay the 150k difference from his pocket.
This is what scares the shit of me. I really don't care too much if the house i buy after doing all the valid calculations as described above does not appreciate for a long time. Also I am not buying the house for investment reasons. But i dont want to be in a situation where 5 years down the line after i bought the house i have lost money on the house and would need to shell out money from my pocket to move out like my friend is today. I am sure 2 years from now which will be 5 years for my friend he will still be under water.
Like most Americans i would like to buy a smaller home which i can afford now since we are a small family and may be 5 years from now may want to move to a bigger home in a better location.
But how things look currently it looks like i may be stuck in the house for a long long time and the standard advise of "buy a home if you plan to stay at least in the house for 5 years" may not apply. Imagine in the worst case being stuck in the same house for 30 years. May not be a big deal but just puts more pressure on you to buy that perfect house which you are sure you will be happy to live there for the next 30 years if needed.
This is what spooks me the most of the current housing market. Again this concern is due to unprecedented times we are in, I am sure 5 years back this would not concern me.
Any thoughts?
While no one can predict future, the least we could do is prepare ourselves for good and bad times.
IMO people should look at purchasing only if these conditions apply:
1) Current rent payment is more than mortgage+prop tax+other monthly fees for new home
2) Homes in relatively stable areas (where unemployment is not too high, diversity of job opportunities)
3) Homes whose prices have not risen significantly in the past 5yrs (anything > 40% since 2001..please stay away)
4) Planning to stay in the house for a MIN 2yrs
One would argue why buy now if it might go lower...
if above conditions are met..it would be a relatively safe buy and above all...people remember... time does not wait for anyone...we grow older everyday..make a decision regarding what we need for us and our family within the reasonable limits...go for it and enjoy it..
an old friend of mine always says...live life..love life...be life
and i believe she is right..
I think we are in unprecedented times...Who would have thought real estate would ever crash ?. At least i never saw this coming and i guess most of those smart investors/economists did not see this coming.
My friend in bay area bought his house 3 years back in a decent school district and he is more than 150K under water. He is going to be stuck in the house now till his house appreciates to the original principal. If he wants to move out of the house he will have to pay the 150k difference from his pocket.
This is what scares the shit of me. I really don't care too much if the house i buy after doing all the valid calculations as described above does not appreciate for a long time. Also I am not buying the house for investment reasons. But i dont want to be in a situation where 5 years down the line after i bought the house i have lost money on the house and would need to shell out money from my pocket to move out like my friend is today. I am sure 2 years from now which will be 5 years for my friend he will still be under water.
Like most Americans i would like to buy a smaller home which i can afford now since we are a small family and may be 5 years from now may want to move to a bigger home in a better location.
But how things look currently it looks like i may be stuck in the house for a long long time and the standard advise of "buy a home if you plan to stay at least in the house for 5 years" may not apply. Imagine in the worst case being stuck in the same house for 30 years. May not be a big deal but just puts more pressure on you to buy that perfect house which you are sure you will be happy to live there for the next 30 years if needed.
This is what spooks me the most of the current housing market. Again this concern is due to unprecedented times we are in, I am sure 5 years back this would not concern me.
Any thoughts?
hair pictures The Chicago Code
GCBatman
01-06 01:04 PM
Please provide proof(example) to support your allegation that "IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam"
If this forum is strictly for immigration, then we wouldn't have allowed members to discuss anything other than immigration.
But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?
If this forum is strictly for immigration, then we wouldn't have allowed members to discuss anything other than immigration.
But IV allowed its members to discuss, degrade, humiliate muslims and Islam. Why didn't they stop it then?
more...
a_yaja
05-15 03:54 PM
How wonderful that congress is finally introducing constructive bills to prevent 'consultants' mainly (but not only) from India from clogging up the H-1B visa system for honest skilled workers. The H-1B program is clearly intended for people WHO HAVE A SOLID FULL-TIME JOB OFFER AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPLICATION. The whole body-shopping/visa abuse phenomenon is just disgusting. I wouldn't cry if any and all kinds of 'consultancy' activity were banned from the H-1B program. Someone stated that then they 'might as well lower the cap to 10.000/year'. Obviously not true. This bill clears out the infested issues of people illegally taking up visas on false premises. Good work!
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
I am not sure after reading your post above if you know the meaning of "consulting". To me it looks like you are focused on the narrow group that are labelled as "on-site" consultants. These are people you are hired by one company and perform their activities at a client site. Even among these people, not all have taken up jobs under false pretext.
First of all - consulting means performing work of temporary nature. It can be temporary due to any number of reasons - regular employee is on medical leave or on maternity leave, job is temp. in nature (an analogy would be that you hire a plumber to fix something in your house and you pay him either on a per-job basis or a per-hour basis) or you do not have expertise in-house to get the job done (the plumber analogy fits here too). Let me give you an example of each one of these.
Regular Employee is on extended leave
-------------------------------------
You are the owner of a company and your office manager is going on maternity leave for 6 months. You call a temp. agency and fill the office manager's position for 6 months. If one were to go by your definition, you would either fire your regular employee and hire a new one or you would hire the second person and fire him/ her when the regular employee is back or you would pay both of them wages
Job is temp. in nature
---------------------
You are the IT manager in a big company and you have been asked to develop a new software application. To develop this application, you require 5 developers and 2 dbas over a period of 6 months. After the application is developed, you need only 2 developers and 1 dba to maintain the application. If one were to go by your logic, you would fire 3 developers and 1 dba after the application has been developed after 6 months. Or - you would just keep all of them on the payroll and the 3 developers and 1 dba will just be coming to the office and doing nothing. If you are really smart, you will hire 2 developers and 1 dba full time and call a temp. agency to fill the other 4 positions on a temp. basis.
You do not have the expertise in-house to get the job done
----------------------------------------------------------
You are the President of a large University and as part of local zoning laws, you need to make sure that your Heating, Ventilation and AC system (HVAC) meets the prescribed design and safty regulations. Going by what you just said, you would hire a person to make sure that everything is in order and submit the findings to the local board and then fire the person after the local zoning commision has cleared your university (one would question how you became the University President in the first place - but that is a totally different story). The other thing to do would be to call a certified Engineering company who specialize in this field and get them to do the job.
If you want to shut down a system because there are some bad apples, then all I can say is that you have a closed mind and you are not willing to think beyond what you see. You would be a classic example of a person whose H1B should not be renewed - if infact you are here on a H1B. If you are not, then I am sure that you will find more support in forums like NumbersUSA.
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
I am not sure after reading your post above if you know the meaning of "consulting". To me it looks like you are focused on the narrow group that are labelled as "on-site" consultants. These are people you are hired by one company and perform their activities at a client site. Even among these people, not all have taken up jobs under false pretext.
First of all - consulting means performing work of temporary nature. It can be temporary due to any number of reasons - regular employee is on medical leave or on maternity leave, job is temp. in nature (an analogy would be that you hire a plumber to fix something in your house and you pay him either on a per-job basis or a per-hour basis) or you do not have expertise in-house to get the job done (the plumber analogy fits here too). Let me give you an example of each one of these.
Regular Employee is on extended leave
-------------------------------------
You are the owner of a company and your office manager is going on maternity leave for 6 months. You call a temp. agency and fill the office manager's position for 6 months. If one were to go by your definition, you would either fire your regular employee and hire a new one or you would hire the second person and fire him/ her when the regular employee is back or you would pay both of them wages
Job is temp. in nature
---------------------
You are the IT manager in a big company and you have been asked to develop a new software application. To develop this application, you require 5 developers and 2 dbas over a period of 6 months. After the application is developed, you need only 2 developers and 1 dba to maintain the application. If one were to go by your logic, you would fire 3 developers and 1 dba after the application has been developed after 6 months. Or - you would just keep all of them on the payroll and the 3 developers and 1 dba will just be coming to the office and doing nothing. If you are really smart, you will hire 2 developers and 1 dba full time and call a temp. agency to fill the other 4 positions on a temp. basis.
You do not have the expertise in-house to get the job done
----------------------------------------------------------
You are the President of a large University and as part of local zoning laws, you need to make sure that your Heating, Ventilation and AC system (HVAC) meets the prescribed design and safty regulations. Going by what you just said, you would hire a person to make sure that everything is in order and submit the findings to the local board and then fire the person after the local zoning commision has cleared your university (one would question how you became the University President in the first place - but that is a totally different story). The other thing to do would be to call a certified Engineering company who specialize in this field and get them to do the job.
If you want to shut down a system because there are some bad apples, then all I can say is that you have a closed mind and you are not willing to think beyond what you see. You would be a classic example of a person whose H1B should not be renewed - if infact you are here on a H1B. If you are not, then I am sure that you will find more support in forums like NumbersUSA.
hot Chicago Bears - Logo Necklace
Macaca
05-18 05:15 PM
How the Middle East’s uprisings affect China’s foreign relations (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/17/how-the-middle-east-s-uprisings-affect-china-s-foreign-relations/) By Shi Yinhong | Renmin University of China
The recent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East have important consequences for China’s foreign relations.
With Washington becoming increasingly preoccupied with the Middle East, it will have less opportunity to focus on China. At the same time, the return of a US policy aimed at promoting democratisation could have a destabilising effect on Sino–US relations. China might reassess how it shapes its relations with highly repressive regimes, and it will have to take into account that Western countries are now better positioned to push resolutions aimed at intervening in certain types of countries through the UN Security Council (UNSC).
The uprisings run counter to assumptions that the predominant struggle in Middle Eastern politics is between US-backed authoritarian regimes and Islamic fundamentalism. Instead, the recent revolts involve a third force — the ‘urban underdogs.’ These popular movements are largely disorganised, have no leaders and are not based on clearly defined ideas. The uprisings are the outcome of poor economic conditions, the authoritarian suppression of fundamental liberties, and the highly corrupt nature of the ruling elite. Situational factors also play a role: the spill over effect from revolts in one country to the next; the availability of modern forms of communication to enable mobilisation; the use of symbolic places for mass gathering (in the case of Tahrir Square in Cairo); overwhelming attention from the West; and the policy inclinations of the US and European governments.
As the Arab world transforms, becoming more tumultuous along the way, Washington will face new dilemmas, and the fight against terror will no longer be overwhelmingly dominant. ‘Pushing democracy’ has returned as a major foreign policy theme in Washington as the uprisings partially restore the West’s self-confidence, battered from the financial crisis.
All of this has major implications for China’s foreign relations. Washington’s deeper involvement in the Middle East is favourable to Beijing, reducing Washington’s ability to place focused attention and pressure on China. But, conversely, the partial return of the push for democracy is not to the benefit of China or stable Sino–US relations. China may need to reconsider its quite amicable relationships with regimes that are repressive, corrupt and have little popular support. Beijing is insufficiently prepared to deal with dramatic political changes in such countries, clearly shown in the past when China’s relations with Iran (1979), Romania (1989) and Serbia (1999) were severely affected. This happened more recently in Zimbabwe, and now also in Egypt and Sudan. Other countries where similar developments could take place are Burma, North Korea and perhaps also Pakistan.
The Middle Eastern turmoil is also relevant to China’s domestic stability. Some activists in and outside China are hoping for a ‘Chinese jasmine revolution.’ Beijing overreacted somewhat, particularly in the early days, by taking strong domestic security precautions despite no signs of widespread activism in China. This may have been the activists’ immediate purpose: to embarrass the Chinese government and to show its lack of self-confidence to the world and the Chinese public. This in turn could make Beijing more hesitant about deepening economic and political reforms.
The uprisings are also affecting China’s international position with regard to the issue of intervention. Beijing probably believed they had no choice other than to allow the UNSC to adopt Resolution 1973, which gave the international community the authority to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. It was clear that the US, France and the UK were resolutely determined to launch a military strike, and certain Arab and African countries supported and even intended to join the intervention. Had Beijing vetoed the resolution, China’s relations with both the West and the Arab countries involved would have been severely strained — and the West would have still launched their attack anyway. This was a hard decision for China: Resolution 1973 could form a dangerous precedent in international law, as previous norms have been revised in favour of armed intervention in a domestic conflict. In the future, the US and its allies might reapply this, potentially to the detriment of China’s interests.
China’s hope for stable Sino–US relations following the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the US in January 2011, and China’s important relationship with Saudi Arabia, had induced Beijing to abstain from using its veto in the UNSC. Moreover, if a similar case does occur in the foreseeable future, it seems rather unlikely that China or Russia would use their veto in order to protect the principle of non-interference. Consequently, the US and its associates in the UNSC might very well see an opportunity to act resolutely in the coming years, with the aim of effecting intervention in other countries, comparable to Libya, a country first of all not allied with them and far distant from them. This is an opportunity that has likely not escaped Washington’s attention.
Shi Yinhong is Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center on American Studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing
Ferguson vs. Kissinger on the future of China, and what it means for the rest of us (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/17/ferguson_vs_kissinger_on_the_future_of_china_and_w hat_it_means_for_the_rest_of_us) By Thomas E. Ricks | Foreign Policy
Getting China Ready to Go Abroad
Companies need to revamp management structures and customer service before they can compete globally. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576328842793701106.html)
By KEVIN TAYLOR | Wall Street Journal
Chinese Spreading Wealth Make Vancouver Homes Pricier Than NYC (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-16/chinese-spreading-wealth-make-vancouver-homes-pricier-than-nyc.html) By Yu and Donville | Bloomberg
China shafts Philippine mines (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME19Ae01.html) By Joel D Adriano | Asia Times
Is This the China that Can't? (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3200&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China's Bold New Plan for Economic Domination (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/chinas-bold-new-plan-for-economic-domination/239041/) By Abraham & Ludlow | The Atlantic
The recent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East have important consequences for China’s foreign relations.
With Washington becoming increasingly preoccupied with the Middle East, it will have less opportunity to focus on China. At the same time, the return of a US policy aimed at promoting democratisation could have a destabilising effect on Sino–US relations. China might reassess how it shapes its relations with highly repressive regimes, and it will have to take into account that Western countries are now better positioned to push resolutions aimed at intervening in certain types of countries through the UN Security Council (UNSC).
The uprisings run counter to assumptions that the predominant struggle in Middle Eastern politics is between US-backed authoritarian regimes and Islamic fundamentalism. Instead, the recent revolts involve a third force — the ‘urban underdogs.’ These popular movements are largely disorganised, have no leaders and are not based on clearly defined ideas. The uprisings are the outcome of poor economic conditions, the authoritarian suppression of fundamental liberties, and the highly corrupt nature of the ruling elite. Situational factors also play a role: the spill over effect from revolts in one country to the next; the availability of modern forms of communication to enable mobilisation; the use of symbolic places for mass gathering (in the case of Tahrir Square in Cairo); overwhelming attention from the West; and the policy inclinations of the US and European governments.
As the Arab world transforms, becoming more tumultuous along the way, Washington will face new dilemmas, and the fight against terror will no longer be overwhelmingly dominant. ‘Pushing democracy’ has returned as a major foreign policy theme in Washington as the uprisings partially restore the West’s self-confidence, battered from the financial crisis.
All of this has major implications for China’s foreign relations. Washington’s deeper involvement in the Middle East is favourable to Beijing, reducing Washington’s ability to place focused attention and pressure on China. But, conversely, the partial return of the push for democracy is not to the benefit of China or stable Sino–US relations. China may need to reconsider its quite amicable relationships with regimes that are repressive, corrupt and have little popular support. Beijing is insufficiently prepared to deal with dramatic political changes in such countries, clearly shown in the past when China’s relations with Iran (1979), Romania (1989) and Serbia (1999) were severely affected. This happened more recently in Zimbabwe, and now also in Egypt and Sudan. Other countries where similar developments could take place are Burma, North Korea and perhaps also Pakistan.
The Middle Eastern turmoil is also relevant to China’s domestic stability. Some activists in and outside China are hoping for a ‘Chinese jasmine revolution.’ Beijing overreacted somewhat, particularly in the early days, by taking strong domestic security precautions despite no signs of widespread activism in China. This may have been the activists’ immediate purpose: to embarrass the Chinese government and to show its lack of self-confidence to the world and the Chinese public. This in turn could make Beijing more hesitant about deepening economic and political reforms.
The uprisings are also affecting China’s international position with regard to the issue of intervention. Beijing probably believed they had no choice other than to allow the UNSC to adopt Resolution 1973, which gave the international community the authority to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. It was clear that the US, France and the UK were resolutely determined to launch a military strike, and certain Arab and African countries supported and even intended to join the intervention. Had Beijing vetoed the resolution, China’s relations with both the West and the Arab countries involved would have been severely strained — and the West would have still launched their attack anyway. This was a hard decision for China: Resolution 1973 could form a dangerous precedent in international law, as previous norms have been revised in favour of armed intervention in a domestic conflict. In the future, the US and its allies might reapply this, potentially to the detriment of China’s interests.
China’s hope for stable Sino–US relations following the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the US in January 2011, and China’s important relationship with Saudi Arabia, had induced Beijing to abstain from using its veto in the UNSC. Moreover, if a similar case does occur in the foreseeable future, it seems rather unlikely that China or Russia would use their veto in order to protect the principle of non-interference. Consequently, the US and its associates in the UNSC might very well see an opportunity to act resolutely in the coming years, with the aim of effecting intervention in other countries, comparable to Libya, a country first of all not allied with them and far distant from them. This is an opportunity that has likely not escaped Washington’s attention.
Shi Yinhong is Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center on American Studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing
Ferguson vs. Kissinger on the future of China, and what it means for the rest of us (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/17/ferguson_vs_kissinger_on_the_future_of_china_and_w hat_it_means_for_the_rest_of_us) By Thomas E. Ricks | Foreign Policy
Getting China Ready to Go Abroad
Companies need to revamp management structures and customer service before they can compete globally. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576328842793701106.html)
By KEVIN TAYLOR | Wall Street Journal
Chinese Spreading Wealth Make Vancouver Homes Pricier Than NYC (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-16/chinese-spreading-wealth-make-vancouver-homes-pricier-than-nyc.html) By Yu and Donville | Bloomberg
China shafts Philippine mines (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME19Ae01.html) By Joel D Adriano | Asia Times
Is This the China that Can't? (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3200&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China's Bold New Plan for Economic Domination (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/chinas-bold-new-plan-for-economic-domination/239041/) By Abraham & Ludlow | The Atlantic
more...
house Big Break The Chicago Code
walking_dude
10-01 11:11 AM
I agree to point (1) for both Obama and McCain. Chances of them happening are very high. I, however, disagree with point (2) for both of them.
A bill similar to HR5882 can be added to CIR as an amendment (like the Cornyn-Cantwell amendment to CIR2007, which unfortunately didn't get voted on as the CIR died!). Most of the CIR backers like Hispanic caucus or Sen Menedez aren't opposed to EB increases/recaptures as such, but have prevented the passage to make pro-business Republicans make concession toward legalization. If Legalization passes through, they are unlikely to stand in our way.
On the other hand, anti-immigrant groups such as FAIR, CIS etc. oppose us as much as they oppose legalization ( according to their bizzaro definition every immigrant is illegal). They will oppose stand-alone bills such as HR 5882 as much as they oppose the CIR . Infact it was filibustering by Repubs such as Steve King and Smith - who are sympathetic to these groups - that killed our bill.
CIR + our EB ammendments will face only opposition from anti-immigrants, where as Hispanic Congressmen and CIR backers will be supporting our bills as well, where as EB-only bill face the ire of both anti-immigrants as well as the CIR backers and the powerful Hispanic caucus. That's the lesson we should learn from the failures of this year.
Focus may be on Economy, but Immigration cannot be ignored due to political considerations. If there is a democratic senate, democratic House and democratic President - Hispanic lawmakers will not let them rest, until they get the CIR on the floor.
IMO, our focus should be to find the EB-killer clauses in the CIR, get them ammended, and add our bills as ammendments to CIR. And not to oppose it in favor of highly-unlikely-to-pass piecemeal legislation.
If Obama becomes Prez
1)Sen. Durbin will play major role in immigration policy which may take us to Stone Age.
2)CIR is only resolution for the immigration ( Bills like HR 5882 will go away)
If McCain becomes Prez
1)Anti �immigrant lobbyist will take center stage and will not allow CIR to pass through
2)Smaller measures like HR 5882 will have chances to pass through
This is my opinion and it may differ from others. Its like catch 22, I have very little hope on either of them, more over based on the current economic situation. whoever the prez their focus will be on fixing the economy rather than immigration - my 2 cents
A bill similar to HR5882 can be added to CIR as an amendment (like the Cornyn-Cantwell amendment to CIR2007, which unfortunately didn't get voted on as the CIR died!). Most of the CIR backers like Hispanic caucus or Sen Menedez aren't opposed to EB increases/recaptures as such, but have prevented the passage to make pro-business Republicans make concession toward legalization. If Legalization passes through, they are unlikely to stand in our way.
On the other hand, anti-immigrant groups such as FAIR, CIS etc. oppose us as much as they oppose legalization ( according to their bizzaro definition every immigrant is illegal). They will oppose stand-alone bills such as HR 5882 as much as they oppose the CIR . Infact it was filibustering by Repubs such as Steve King and Smith - who are sympathetic to these groups - that killed our bill.
CIR + our EB ammendments will face only opposition from anti-immigrants, where as Hispanic Congressmen and CIR backers will be supporting our bills as well, where as EB-only bill face the ire of both anti-immigrants as well as the CIR backers and the powerful Hispanic caucus. That's the lesson we should learn from the failures of this year.
Focus may be on Economy, but Immigration cannot be ignored due to political considerations. If there is a democratic senate, democratic House and democratic President - Hispanic lawmakers will not let them rest, until they get the CIR on the floor.
IMO, our focus should be to find the EB-killer clauses in the CIR, get them ammended, and add our bills as ammendments to CIR. And not to oppose it in favor of highly-unlikely-to-pass piecemeal legislation.
If Obama becomes Prez
1)Sen. Durbin will play major role in immigration policy which may take us to Stone Age.
2)CIR is only resolution for the immigration ( Bills like HR 5882 will go away)
If McCain becomes Prez
1)Anti �immigrant lobbyist will take center stage and will not allow CIR to pass through
2)Smaller measures like HR 5882 will have chances to pass through
This is my opinion and it may differ from others. Its like catch 22, I have very little hope on either of them, more over based on the current economic situation. whoever the prez their focus will be on fixing the economy rather than immigration - my 2 cents
tattoo THE CHICAGO CODE “Bathhouse
rockstart
07-14 09:24 AM
A guy who filed his labor in say 2001 and it took 3 years for that labor to approve should he complain that after PERM guys got labor approved in 2-3 months and in some cased even before him. Should we complain USCIS / DOL for improving the system? Guys just because your Lawyers asked you to file EB3 does not make things right. Why did you agree on EB3? if you were so convinced that you qualified for EB2 you could have taken the matters to your boss and upper management in your company? If you did not get juistice then you could have quit that company and joined another organization that was ready to recognize your talents? All phani_6 wants is a cake and eat it too. This is not possible dude this letter in its present draft is a laughing stock. Make it factually correct and this will make entire IV community support it regarless of Eb2 or Eb3.
more...
pictures Paid for by Chicago PAC
unitednations
07-17 12:37 PM
My employer back in 2001 and 2002 did not pay me in a consistent way..I was paid once in every three months during the time I was in bench. I have the W2 returns from those two years which shows average income of only 29K. However I had valid visa status and h1b approval from my employer as well as employment verification letter from them. Now i am with a new employer since 2003 and do not have any problems with them and get paid regurarly. After reading manub's post I am also worried if my I485 will be denied whenever I apply for it... or is there somethings I can take care of before? It is not my fault that the employer did not pay me consistently - right?
A decent number of people were in this situation during those two years.
uscis if they want can go all the way back to date of last entry prior to filing 485 to prove status (monthly paychecks, w2's, etc.). If cumulatively you did not maintain status for 180 days then it can be a problem. If you get this type of rfe then you have to go through great lengths to explain and get the out of status time to less then 180 days.
A decent number of people were in this situation during those two years.
uscis if they want can go all the way back to date of last entry prior to filing 485 to prove status (monthly paychecks, w2's, etc.). If cumulatively you did not maintain status for 180 days then it can be a problem. If you get this type of rfe then you have to go through great lengths to explain and get the out of status time to less then 180 days.
dresses Chicago Open attendees.
NKR
08-06 11:32 AM
The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
But for some getting a GC earlier makes a huge difference in their lives. Ask someone whose kid might just be a few months before he/she becomes 21 (A colleague in my team is in that situation). Ask someone who is dire need for extra money and wish to become permanent.
I had told in an earlier post, it all depends on individual situation, some people cite an extreme case to put forth their point and some other counters that by citing an extreme case on the opposite end.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US. EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
So you mean to say that an EB3 cannot acquire superior skills over a period of time?.
Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005.
Seriously you should, otherwise you would undermine the value of your education. It runs counter to your argument that EB2 Masters has more value and deserves not to be clubbed with EB3 while you are willing to stick on to an EB3 PD. Something doesn�t sound right here�
But for some getting a GC earlier makes a huge difference in their lives. Ask someone whose kid might just be a few months before he/she becomes 21 (A colleague in my team is in that situation). Ask someone who is dire need for extra money and wish to become permanent.
I had told in an earlier post, it all depends on individual situation, some people cite an extreme case to put forth their point and some other counters that by citing an extreme case on the opposite end.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US. EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
So you mean to say that an EB3 cannot acquire superior skills over a period of time?.
Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005.
Seriously you should, otherwise you would undermine the value of your education. It runs counter to your argument that EB2 Masters has more value and deserves not to be clubbed with EB3 while you are willing to stick on to an EB3 PD. Something doesn�t sound right here�
more...
makeup Chicago Bulls NBA Team Logo
Dhundhun
08-06 10:23 PM
This is joke on myself on my H1B life:
Creater God was busy in creation; there was very long queue for every species- humans, animals, birds, insets, etc. I was in queue of animals. Being slightly smarter, I jumped the queue and joined the queue of humans. God by mistake made me human. Soon He realized me jumping the line and cursed me as punishment to work on H1 Visa like animals.
After sometimes He realized His mistake. It was His mistake to make me human, so He blessed – OK, one fine day, when you lived through your animal's life, you will get GC, afterwards you get back again human life.
Still waiting for that fine day.
Creater God was busy in creation; there was very long queue for every species- humans, animals, birds, insets, etc. I was in queue of animals. Being slightly smarter, I jumped the queue and joined the queue of humans. God by mistake made me human. Soon He realized me jumping the line and cursed me as punishment to work on H1 Visa like animals.
After sometimes He realized His mistake. It was His mistake to make me human, so He blessed – OK, one fine day, when you lived through your animal's life, you will get GC, afterwards you get back again human life.
Still waiting for that fine day.
girlfriend Chicago Indoor Sports; Street:
redgreen
08-05 10:03 AM
Many are supporting 'porting'. Then why are they opposing 'substitution'??
The original poster never said that an EB3 should not apply for EB2. But after a few years when they can apply in EB2 they should not be considered they were already in EB2 all those years! There is no logic in it. I understand the frustration of everybody who is waiting for GC for several years. But laws should be based on some logic. Consider people who didn't apply for GC for years even though they were eligible! Are you people saying that they should get priority over people who applied??
The original poster never said that an EB3 should not apply for EB2. But after a few years when they can apply in EB2 they should not be considered they were already in EB2 all those years! There is no logic in it. I understand the frustration of everybody who is waiting for GC for several years. But laws should be based on some logic. Consider people who didn't apply for GC for years even though they were eligible! Are you people saying that they should get priority over people who applied??
hairstyles chicago code ratings.
sledge_hammer
12-17 04:14 PM
I too will post something funny :)
<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3VJrXo5zGNk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3VJrXo5zGNk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>
<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3VJrXo5zGNk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3VJrXo5zGNk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>
dixie
05-24 11:59 AM
Folks,
I think if you one wants to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of H1B's or immigrant visas, then you can go ahead and label that person "anti-immigrant". I would be with you, saying that is definitely negative to America.
So far I haven't seen Lou Dobbs doing that though. All the time I watch the program I see that man bringing up legitimate concerns. Lou Dobbs is a hero for Americans. The fact is that in general, wages have been stagnated for the last five years. What I have seen Lou Dobbs bringing up is that H1B numbers should not be increased. Don't you think that is a fair and rational approach ? Tell me. Honestly, when I learned this provision that they want to increase H1B visas at 20% every year, that appeared quite of a stretch to me. Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?
if you think he is only against INCREASING H1-B visas, but is happy with you and I continuing here on that visa and go on to get GCs, then you are fooling yourself. He is the one primarily responsible for spreading the myth that H1-B workers pay no taxes.To this day, my co-workers openly envy me , because I supposedly dont pay any taxes !!!
If you go through the transcripts of his shows over the last 4-5 years, he is stauncly against everything foriegn, period. He hates H1-Bs, absolutely hates indian call centers , hates cheap chinese goods, hates illegal aliens ... he is not just anti-immigrant, he is xenophobic.
The reason he is so popular is because he appeals to populist sentiments .. its the easiest thing in the world to blame foreigners when the economy is bad and believe everything will be hunky-dory if they are kicked out.
And by the way, I dont see anything wrong in increasing H1-B visas .. after all most of us are here on that visa .. if there is a market demand for them, I see no rational in depriving american employees from hiring foreigners legally. By that logic, are we going to oppose increasing EB green cards once we get our own?? Thats plain hypocrisy.
Nobody riles me more than lou dobbs .. not tancredo, not sessions, not even FAIR. Because, unlike his worthy friends, he has access to idiot boxes all around america on a daily basis.
I think if you one wants to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of H1B's or immigrant visas, then you can go ahead and label that person "anti-immigrant". I would be with you, saying that is definitely negative to America.
So far I haven't seen Lou Dobbs doing that though. All the time I watch the program I see that man bringing up legitimate concerns. Lou Dobbs is a hero for Americans. The fact is that in general, wages have been stagnated for the last five years. What I have seen Lou Dobbs bringing up is that H1B numbers should not be increased. Don't you think that is a fair and rational approach ? Tell me. Honestly, when I learned this provision that they want to increase H1B visas at 20% every year, that appeared quite of a stretch to me. Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?
if you think he is only against INCREASING H1-B visas, but is happy with you and I continuing here on that visa and go on to get GCs, then you are fooling yourself. He is the one primarily responsible for spreading the myth that H1-B workers pay no taxes.To this day, my co-workers openly envy me , because I supposedly dont pay any taxes !!!
If you go through the transcripts of his shows over the last 4-5 years, he is stauncly against everything foriegn, period. He hates H1-Bs, absolutely hates indian call centers , hates cheap chinese goods, hates illegal aliens ... he is not just anti-immigrant, he is xenophobic.
The reason he is so popular is because he appeals to populist sentiments .. its the easiest thing in the world to blame foreigners when the economy is bad and believe everything will be hunky-dory if they are kicked out.
And by the way, I dont see anything wrong in increasing H1-B visas .. after all most of us are here on that visa .. if there is a market demand for them, I see no rational in depriving american employees from hiring foreigners legally. By that logic, are we going to oppose increasing EB green cards once we get our own?? Thats plain hypocrisy.
Nobody riles me more than lou dobbs .. not tancredo, not sessions, not even FAIR. Because, unlike his worthy friends, he has access to idiot boxes all around america on a daily basis.
pd_recapturing
04-15 02:39 PM
Mariner555 is right. When I was buying a house, my friend also bought a house at the same time. he bought a big brand new single family and I bought a smaller old townhouse (2004 built). His house did cost hom around 200k more than mine. Now, after 5 months, when I asked him, how is life, he lamented that whole of his income goes towards the mortgage and nothing left for other activities. In my opinion, one shud buy house when he/she can save enough to enjoy other aspects of life after paying the mortgage. I have seen ppl cursing their decision to buy house because of the mortgage. I do not think that its anything to do with housing market.
And finally believe me, living in your own house is a great feeling so go for it...:)
And finally believe me, living in your own house is a great feeling so go for it...:)
No comments:
Post a Comment