Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
wallpaper cheerleaders hairstyles
insbaby
03-25 06:56 AM
Awesome piece of advice..I've got to meet ya!!
Because you Can't Leave America.
Because you Can't Leave America.
conundrum
12-18 03:54 PM
be it Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia,Darfur,Chechnya, Kashmir, Gujarat... everywhere muslims are killed for being muslims...noone goes to cuba,srilanka,north korea,zimbawe or whereever for watever reason...just imagine God forbid someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.
I had promised myself to stay out of this debate. I am not sure it does us any good. But Razi, you gotta be kidding me? So let me try to understand your logic. The Muslims are 'oppressed', according to you, in say Kashmir. OK, for arguments sake let me accept that at face value. How does that justify killing a human being???? Do you even realize that the beauty of democracy, as flawed as it might be in India, is that you get to choose who represents you and the people have the right to choose how they should be governed through their elected representatives. Why is it that the so called Hurriyat guys are sh**ing square brick at the thought of contesting in an election.
Why is it that there are no true democracies in the middle east? Have you ever thought of that? Do you realize that in a country like Saudi Arabia women are oppressed and they have to follow the dictates of the mullahs!! Every person, irrespective of their personal faith is subject to the Sharia laws!! Is that justice!! Why is it that Muslims don�t see oppression within their own country and try wage a jihad against that? Why is it that Muslims don�t want to spend time and effort cleaning up their own house?
Here is some free advice for you, first up why don�t you and any others who feel that Muslims are being oppressed in parts of world where Muslims are a minority wage a jihad in Muslim majority countries and free your society from the injustice that are being passed out to the population in the name of Islam. When I see you do that and that will be day you will be able to point your fingers at other countries. Buddy, first get your house in order before you start pointing fingers. Remember, when you point 1 finger at a person 4 are pointing at you!
I had promised myself to stay out of this debate. I am not sure it does us any good. But Razi, you gotta be kidding me? So let me try to understand your logic. The Muslims are 'oppressed', according to you, in say Kashmir. OK, for arguments sake let me accept that at face value. How does that justify killing a human being???? Do you even realize that the beauty of democracy, as flawed as it might be in India, is that you get to choose who represents you and the people have the right to choose how they should be governed through their elected representatives. Why is it that the so called Hurriyat guys are sh**ing square brick at the thought of contesting in an election.
Why is it that there are no true democracies in the middle east? Have you ever thought of that? Do you realize that in a country like Saudi Arabia women are oppressed and they have to follow the dictates of the mullahs!! Every person, irrespective of their personal faith is subject to the Sharia laws!! Is that justice!! Why is it that Muslims don�t see oppression within their own country and try wage a jihad against that? Why is it that Muslims don�t want to spend time and effort cleaning up their own house?
Here is some free advice for you, first up why don�t you and any others who feel that Muslims are being oppressed in parts of world where Muslims are a minority wage a jihad in Muslim majority countries and free your society from the injustice that are being passed out to the population in the name of Islam. When I see you do that and that will be day you will be able to point your fingers at other countries. Buddy, first get your house in order before you start pointing fingers. Remember, when you point 1 finger at a person 4 are pointing at you!
2011 Virginia Cheerleading
abracadabra102
01-03 07:01 PM
If cockroaches from my house take a dump in your kitchen, don't ask me to apologize for that.
You summed up the entire Pakistani approach to terrorism beautifully. We have a problem. You won't cleanup your house and I can't live like you (with all these cockroaches coming from your house). I am afraid I may have to burn your house down. I may lose my house as well, but that is the risk I should be taking.
You summed up the entire Pakistani approach to terrorism beautifully. We have a problem. You won't cleanup your house and I can't live like you (with all these cockroaches coming from your house). I am afraid I may have to burn your house down. I may lose my house as well, but that is the risk I should be taking.
more...
smisachu
12-28 08:48 PM
India is nobody's fool. Will you take back inside your house, the trash you have trown out? India wins the war, destroys all terrorist camps, kills all the wanted terrorists on Indian files. Then India withdraws from pakistan leaving back pakistan in the hands of its current civilian heads. All India wants is to kill the terrorists, either Pakistan does it or We do it for you. India will be doing Pakistan a favor. So either you do it or we do it. Bottom like the terrorists need to be Killed.
And as far as comparing us to President Bush, India has never lost a war yet because India never went to war with any one with out them provoking it. India always fights Justified wars and justice always wins.
So Mr. Trained Reservist,
Let's say the war is won in 15-20 days based on your expert knowledge, what is next? India occupies Pakistan? and acquires 160 million muslim population along with Talibans? You think that will end terrorism and riots in India?
Oh BTW, there is another trained reservist in the history who claimed Iraq war would be won in two weeks. Do you know who he is? Hint: he became the worst president in the history of the US.
And as far as comparing us to President Bush, India has never lost a war yet because India never went to war with any one with out them provoking it. India always fights Justified wars and justice always wins.
So Mr. Trained Reservist,
Let's say the war is won in 15-20 days based on your expert knowledge, what is next? India occupies Pakistan? and acquires 160 million muslim population along with Talibans? You think that will end terrorism and riots in India?
Oh BTW, there is another trained reservist in the history who claimed Iraq war would be won in two weeks. Do you know who he is? Hint: he became the worst president in the history of the US.
h1techSlave
12-26 01:38 PM
A full fledged war between India and Pakistan is very very unlikely.
more...
logiclife
04-07 12:30 AM
Guys,
There is going to be no difference whether you
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
So take this seriously and do not underestimate this.
And if you work perm-fulltime it will indirectly affect you. Projects are not done in isolation. Most projects have a mix of full-time employees and consultants who are sourced from vendors and H1B recruitors. Projects falter and fail when abruptly some consultants go back to their home countries because their H1s couldnt get extended. And that affects everyone. Job security depends on success of IT or other projects and if you are a part of failed project that was lost half way due to lack of skilled employees, then your job security also diminishes. If you are laid off, then the H1 transfer to a new company would be subject to the new rules under this law.
There is going to be no difference whether you
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
So take this seriously and do not underestimate this.
And if you work perm-fulltime it will indirectly affect you. Projects are not done in isolation. Most projects have a mix of full-time employees and consultants who are sourced from vendors and H1B recruitors. Projects falter and fail when abruptly some consultants go back to their home countries because their H1s couldnt get extended. And that affects everyone. Job security depends on success of IT or other projects and if you are a part of failed project that was lost half way due to lack of skilled employees, then your job security also diminishes. If you are laid off, then the H1 transfer to a new company would be subject to the new rules under this law.
2010 hairstyles for prom 2011 long
rima1805
03-23 09:36 AM
my greencard is filed under EB3 category and it looks like a long wait. My PD is 2003 Nov and i am an indian. We've been debating whether to buy a house when 485 is pending. what is the risk involved? how many people are in a similar situation? I have twin boys and they are 3 yrs old now and it's getting increasingly difficult to keep them in an apartment. Now with housing market going down as well, we are in a tight spot and have to make a decision quickly. I would appreciate any suggestion in this regard.
We bought a townhome in my 1st yr of H1 as I had just got married and my wife (from India) was literally living out of her boxes in my 1-bed rm apt. My decision was based less on home being an investment (due to decling real est market, etc) and more on being a necessity. Try one of the "rent vs buy" online calculators to see how much more you would have to pay. For instance, I was shelling out ~1000 bucks a month on a decent 1 bed apt with garage; and now, I pay ~1500 on a 3 bed, 2.5 bath, 2 car garage townhome. This year I could also itemize my mortgage int payments and pay less tax too, where as the rent you pay every month goes straight into the drain! We recently had my parents from India stay for 6mo with comfort. Try that in an apt. In view of the GC situation, I'd go for a not-so-expensive but good neighborhood home so that you can 'enjoy' your life as others have rightly pointed out and sell it with lesser pain if you have to move & the housing market tanks. Good luck!
We bought a townhome in my 1st yr of H1 as I had just got married and my wife (from India) was literally living out of her boxes in my 1-bed rm apt. My decision was based less on home being an investment (due to decling real est market, etc) and more on being a necessity. Try one of the "rent vs buy" online calculators to see how much more you would have to pay. For instance, I was shelling out ~1000 bucks a month on a decent 1 bed apt with garage; and now, I pay ~1500 on a 3 bed, 2.5 bath, 2 car garage townhome. This year I could also itemize my mortgage int payments and pay less tax too, where as the rent you pay every month goes straight into the drain! We recently had my parents from India stay for 6mo with comfort. Try that in an apt. In view of the GC situation, I'd go for a not-so-expensive but good neighborhood home so that you can 'enjoy' your life as others have rightly pointed out and sell it with lesser pain if you have to move & the housing market tanks. Good luck!
more...
pappu
07-14 09:27 PM
Guys,
Draft of this letter itself is an invitation for the investigation into Labor certification process for the individual who are suggesting they were qualified as EB-2, but their attorneys or HR reps told them to file under EB-3.
Entire LC process is certified under the assumption that the employer in good faith has tried to hire US citizen and since he couldnt find a qualified US citizen for a that Job position, the employer is hiring an alien ( foreign national).
I am not supporting this petition, even though i am a victim of the backlog centres and my labor took 4+ years for approval.
We should all support IV's initiative for recapturing of wasted VISA numbers from the past years.
Fighting among indian EB-2 and EB-3 is useless and it defeats the purpose of IV unity.
IV seniours should immediately intervene in this matter and stop further discussions on this useless petition which doesnt have any legal standings and in itself is an invitation from DoL and USCIS to investigate the individuals who signed the petition and messed up their immigration process.
------------------------
PD: India EB-3 June 03.
I-485 filed in Aug 2007 at NSC.
awaiting I-485 approval...which will be 2-3 yrs down the road, if no relief from US congress.
Right now enjoying the freedom using EAD.
I have my disagreements with the letter content and have let it known in my posts on the thread.
Pani you are an old IV member with IV experience and I trust that you would give second thoughts based on my comments.
Draft of this letter itself is an invitation for the investigation into Labor certification process for the individual who are suggesting they were qualified as EB-2, but their attorneys or HR reps told them to file under EB-3.
Entire LC process is certified under the assumption that the employer in good faith has tried to hire US citizen and since he couldnt find a qualified US citizen for a that Job position, the employer is hiring an alien ( foreign national).
I am not supporting this petition, even though i am a victim of the backlog centres and my labor took 4+ years for approval.
We should all support IV's initiative for recapturing of wasted VISA numbers from the past years.
Fighting among indian EB-2 and EB-3 is useless and it defeats the purpose of IV unity.
IV seniours should immediately intervene in this matter and stop further discussions on this useless petition which doesnt have any legal standings and in itself is an invitation from DoL and USCIS to investigate the individuals who signed the petition and messed up their immigration process.
------------------------
PD: India EB-3 June 03.
I-485 filed in Aug 2007 at NSC.
awaiting I-485 approval...which will be 2-3 yrs down the road, if no relief from US congress.
Right now enjoying the freedom using EAD.
I have my disagreements with the letter content and have let it known in my posts on the thread.
Pani you are an old IV member with IV experience and I trust that you would give second thoughts based on my comments.
hair hairstyles The Gold Coast
Rolling_Flood
08-05 08:19 AM
Mirage, in my own small way, i was also involved in the fight against Labor Sub. Cannot discuss it here as i do not think this is an appropriate forum.
However, i do understand your point of view. But, you have to realize that EB-1,2 and 3 are DISTINCT paths. "Time benefits" should not cascade across these different categories, and that is what i intend to fight legally.
I can provide more details in a week or so, when i have my final draft plan ready.
In your example the EB-3 guy was in the green card line before the EB-2 guy. Why on earth should he be asked to come in line after EB-2 guy if he decides to file a new one under EB-2. Why did not you wake up when Labor Substitution was going on. that was something which was utter non sense. People deciding to go for Green card in 2007 stood ahead of people from 2002 by substittuting a 2001 labor. Thank God it's gone.
However, i do understand your point of view. But, you have to realize that EB-1,2 and 3 are DISTINCT paths. "Time benefits" should not cascade across these different categories, and that is what i intend to fight legally.
I can provide more details in a week or so, when i have my final draft plan ready.
In your example the EB-3 guy was in the green card line before the EB-2 guy. Why on earth should he be asked to come in line after EB-2 guy if he decides to file a new one under EB-2. Why did not you wake up when Labor Substitution was going on. that was something which was utter non sense. People deciding to go for Green card in 2007 stood ahead of people from 2002 by substittuting a 2001 labor. Thank God it's gone.
more...
simple1
06-05 01:00 PM
The arguments like the following works for gc/usc only, who can stay put even after loosing job. The H1b has to leave the country.
- best time to buy
- inflation level of the real high prices
- lock low interest rates now.
- clean/strong foreclosure houses available now.
- federal incentive to buy house.
- downpayment assistance.
- etc.
- best time to buy
- inflation level of the real high prices
- lock low interest rates now.
- clean/strong foreclosure houses available now.
- federal incentive to buy house.
- downpayment assistance.
- etc.
hot #2 Cute Girls Hairstyles
CreatedToday
01-09 01:34 PM
The discussion tuned nasty! Admin got involved.
why are you digging it up?
Its good we talk healthy now!
why are you digging it up?
Its good we talk healthy now!
more...
house wallpaper prom hairdos
file485
07-08 10:01 PM
Very insightful.
So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.
In Manu's case..he had no choice, but to mention he was on H1 with those companies in that period,but he dint have paystubs/W2's with them..
this AOS is a nightmare if we have any grey areas with our case..until we get the card into our hands..!!
So in essence they give the boiler plate RFE's to drag you into a trap and once you oblige with the irrelevant info asked for in the RFE's, then the game is over. so we need to be very careful with the information we provide and need to be consistent no matter what is asked for.
In Manu's case..he had no choice, but to mention he was on H1 with those companies in that period,but he dint have paystubs/W2's with them..
this AOS is a nightmare if we have any grey areas with our case..until we get the card into our hands..!!
tattoo Basketball Cheerleaders Tryouts: Short Spiky Mens Hairstyles
file485
07-08 07:52 PM
this is so so jittery...
this is a post where they r actually checking the from and to date of the dependant's i94 out-of-status
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=190778
guys..who just posted before me...pls read the whole thread, her husband had already filed once for AOS and then they had asked for his W2's for which he dint have..they abandoned that AOS and now trying AOS thru the wife..so basically he is still in the records of INS..maybe he dint reply his RFE or god knows what database INS maintains..
this is a post where they r actually checking the from and to date of the dependant's i94 out-of-status
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=190778
guys..who just posted before me...pls read the whole thread, her husband had already filed once for AOS and then they had asked for his W2's for which he dint have..they abandoned that AOS and now trying AOS thru the wife..so basically he is still in the records of INS..maybe he dint reply his RFE or god knows what database INS maintains..
more...
pictures Cheerleader Ponytails
.jpg "Cheerleaders and videos on")
pd_recapturing
08-05 10:55 AM
Rolling_Flood, great idea to benefit just U'r own GC cause. If you are positive about U'r logic why don't you go ahead and file a lawsuit. Looks like your true intention of creating this thread is to create a divide among IV members. Already members had a tough few weeks (in terms of unity) after the Aug bulletin. Now you are poking another rift.
The EB classification is for a future job. Since the person is qualified, he ports to EB2 midway so what. The GC is for a future job, and when the person gets his/her GC, he/she is qualified for that position at that time. So what is U'r logic??
If you want to truly fight the system them fight for a common basis for EB classification. There are cases where the same job title has been classified under all 3 categories. Example
Senior Programmer (say Bachelor's with 5 yrs exp)
Files under EB1 : because he/she came L1, qualification might be few yrs exp.
Files under EB2 : because he/she has 5 yrs of exp and the attorney was smart to classify it as EB2.
Files under EB3 : because of company policy or based on bad attorney advice (conservative approach).
The above example shows that if U'r company and attorney is smart U can get U'r GC faster.
If you are keen on doing a lawsuit why not
File one against USCIS for wasting thousands of visa's over the past few years, which is the source of this backlog.
Or file one against DOL for taking n number of years to get the LC done.
Or file one against 245 filers who clogged the USCIS system which is causing USCIS to be inefficient.
Man, you hit the nail on the head !!! Thats precise the point, I was trying to say in my last post (somewhere on page 1) ... The whole eb2/eb3 qualification, job requirements etc can be rigged easily by employer/lawyers ...There is no black and white in this game ..
The EB classification is for a future job. Since the person is qualified, he ports to EB2 midway so what. The GC is for a future job, and when the person gets his/her GC, he/she is qualified for that position at that time. So what is U'r logic??
If you want to truly fight the system them fight for a common basis for EB classification. There are cases where the same job title has been classified under all 3 categories. Example
Senior Programmer (say Bachelor's with 5 yrs exp)
Files under EB1 : because he/she came L1, qualification might be few yrs exp.
Files under EB2 : because he/she has 5 yrs of exp and the attorney was smart to classify it as EB2.
Files under EB3 : because of company policy or based on bad attorney advice (conservative approach).
The above example shows that if U'r company and attorney is smart U can get U'r GC faster.
If you are keen on doing a lawsuit why not
File one against USCIS for wasting thousands of visa's over the past few years, which is the source of this backlog.
Or file one against DOL for taking n number of years to get the LC done.
Or file one against 245 filers who clogged the USCIS system which is causing USCIS to be inefficient.
Man, you hit the nail on the head !!! Thats precise the point, I was trying to say in my last post (somewhere on page 1) ... The whole eb2/eb3 qualification, job requirements etc can be rigged easily by employer/lawyers ...There is no black and white in this game ..
dresses hairstyles Top 10 Hellcats
NKR
09-30 02:26 PM
Yes, you are right, the recent 485 denials for people using AC-21 have nothing to do with Obama/Durbin immigtaion policy. But I kind of remember there were some harsh provisions for people using AC 21 in CIR 2007 version. I am trying to find out the details about it.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I just do not understand this part, why would they provide something and ask us not to use it. It is like giving you a piece of cake and telling you not to eat it. This whole thing sucks, they are making it harder for people who live by the law of the land.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I just do not understand this part, why would they provide something and ask us not to use it. It is like giving you a piece of cake and telling you not to eat it. This whole thing sucks, they are making it harder for people who live by the law of the land.
more...
makeup pink hairstyles 2010. pink
xyzgc
12-23 01:50 PM
I am sure that once muslim community or for that matter any community prospers the radicalism reduces. Unfortunately the religious muslim leaders dont want the community to get educated, prosper and westernized because than they would loose control..its precisely for this reason that the religious leaders of this community have for centuries scared the followers of the community with gods wrath if they changed. The Muslim religion has to become progressive and moderate.
About the terrorism was thinking what options does India have to fight against this. Yes military action definitely is an option but it does more harm to India than to Pakistan. Attacking Pakistan, India has a lot to loose while Pakistan has nothing loose. It would make Pakistan from a failing state to a failed state, but would put India years behind as far as economy is concerned and create the biggest headache for India for decades to come. A military confrontation and weakening of Pakistan’s military establishment would let Pakistan slip fully into the hands of Religious fanatics and produce million more terrorist who will be a long-term headache for India.
If one back goes back in the history, Pakistan has lost a lot more than India in the last three wars, and that is the only reason why the establishment in Pakistan including the Military has preferred encouraging and sponsoring cross border terrorism which is of very little cost to Pakistan but a constant headache to India. India has lost more from these terrorist attacks including Kargil war than they would if they had gone through a one time direct confrontation. I personally feel that if India does decide to go in for a military confrontation it has to be long term strategy to occupy the country and wipe out terrorism and help to nurture the economy so that prosperity and wealth creation takes a front seat and religion moves low in the peoples priority. In fact if Pakistan can ever have a strong economy and strong democracy, I am sure the country will move towards a moderate religious society. Lets face it, man is a very selfish being, it will never put its personal prosperity at stake for a larger cause even it that happens to be religion. An example of this is the Middle East Kingdom where the monarchs including the common folk is very possessive about personal wealth and will go to any extent to preserve it.
The only way this can ever happen is by a willing global coalition, which is ready to be there for a long haul and not by India alone. If India did do a quick military action and left the country, Pakistan would move to become another Afghanistan creating the biggest headache for India for decades and decades to come and effectively dragging Indian economy and prosperity.
Its sad that India let this headache linger on for so long, had it taken remedial action by taking control of complete kashmir and installing a pro Indian govt in 1971 we would not be confronting an nuclear dragon with very little option to fight it.
Very good post. The main intent behind terrorist acts is to disrupt the Indian economy.
Like some one has so consistently maintained - our leaders have committed several mistakes in the past.
1. Our leaders easily conceded to the demand for a separate country of Pakistan. This has only alienated Hindus and Muslims but has potentially put nuclear arsenal in the hands of the terrorists.
2. Ok, there was a separation but was the separation clean? The terrorists have just mixed in with the Mumbai crowd. Do they even need to leave Mumbai for Karachi? There are enemies internal and external. 154 millions muslims. Are they all terrorists? Absolutely not.
But even if there is 1% who have to do anything with terrorism - its trouble and lots of it.
3. When we had multiple chances to occupy the country, we backed off and retreated.Instead if we had marched all the way to Islamabad, taken out the military dictators and set the country on a path of democracy and economic progress - you would have Pakistani economy flourishing and not living off the IMF, the American and the Asian Bank's doles. We would have seen TCS, Wipro, Infosys, Satyam counterparts in Pakistan.Anything wrong with that? Its finally the same race and the people....
4. The congress party created vote banks by appeasing muslims. Instead of this kind of appeasement (very similar to appeasements to backward class), if we had created uniform laws, the entire community would havebeen absorbed into the mainstream. Instead, we are ourselves responsible for pampering and alienating them. Its the most unfortunate.
About the terrorism was thinking what options does India have to fight against this. Yes military action definitely is an option but it does more harm to India than to Pakistan. Attacking Pakistan, India has a lot to loose while Pakistan has nothing loose. It would make Pakistan from a failing state to a failed state, but would put India years behind as far as economy is concerned and create the biggest headache for India for decades to come. A military confrontation and weakening of Pakistan’s military establishment would let Pakistan slip fully into the hands of Religious fanatics and produce million more terrorist who will be a long-term headache for India.
If one back goes back in the history, Pakistan has lost a lot more than India in the last three wars, and that is the only reason why the establishment in Pakistan including the Military has preferred encouraging and sponsoring cross border terrorism which is of very little cost to Pakistan but a constant headache to India. India has lost more from these terrorist attacks including Kargil war than they would if they had gone through a one time direct confrontation. I personally feel that if India does decide to go in for a military confrontation it has to be long term strategy to occupy the country and wipe out terrorism and help to nurture the economy so that prosperity and wealth creation takes a front seat and religion moves low in the peoples priority. In fact if Pakistan can ever have a strong economy and strong democracy, I am sure the country will move towards a moderate religious society. Lets face it, man is a very selfish being, it will never put its personal prosperity at stake for a larger cause even it that happens to be religion. An example of this is the Middle East Kingdom where the monarchs including the common folk is very possessive about personal wealth and will go to any extent to preserve it.
The only way this can ever happen is by a willing global coalition, which is ready to be there for a long haul and not by India alone. If India did do a quick military action and left the country, Pakistan would move to become another Afghanistan creating the biggest headache for India for decades and decades to come and effectively dragging Indian economy and prosperity.
Its sad that India let this headache linger on for so long, had it taken remedial action by taking control of complete kashmir and installing a pro Indian govt in 1971 we would not be confronting an nuclear dragon with very little option to fight it.
Very good post. The main intent behind terrorist acts is to disrupt the Indian economy.
Like some one has so consistently maintained - our leaders have committed several mistakes in the past.
1. Our leaders easily conceded to the demand for a separate country of Pakistan. This has only alienated Hindus and Muslims but has potentially put nuclear arsenal in the hands of the terrorists.
2. Ok, there was a separation but was the separation clean? The terrorists have just mixed in with the Mumbai crowd. Do they even need to leave Mumbai for Karachi? There are enemies internal and external. 154 millions muslims. Are they all terrorists? Absolutely not.
But even if there is 1% who have to do anything with terrorism - its trouble and lots of it.
3. When we had multiple chances to occupy the country, we backed off and retreated.Instead if we had marched all the way to Islamabad, taken out the military dictators and set the country on a path of democracy and economic progress - you would have Pakistani economy flourishing and not living off the IMF, the American and the Asian Bank's doles. We would have seen TCS, Wipro, Infosys, Satyam counterparts in Pakistan.Anything wrong with that? Its finally the same race and the people....
4. The congress party created vote banks by appeasing muslims. Instead of this kind of appeasement (very similar to appeasements to backward class), if we had created uniform laws, the entire community would havebeen absorbed into the mainstream. Instead, we are ourselves responsible for pampering and alienating them. Its the most unfortunate.
girlfriend Kim Kardashian Cheerleader
coopheal
01-08 01:12 PM
Anyway, i'll sign off and i won't post any more message in this thread again.
Please respect your own post and stop posting on this topic.
Please respect your own post and stop posting on this topic.
hairstyles The goddess ponytail hairstyle
unitednations
03-26 04:26 PM
That is precisely why smaller companies choose to revoke the 140 when an employee leaves them while the 485 is still pending.
It isn't always to "get back" at the employee.
That being said, UN, I would love to hear your thoughts on this situation,
Person leaves employer X (140 approved, more than 180 days since 485 filing, etc.) and joins employer Y on EAD (under AC21).
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
I know that many people don't like it when their companies revoke I-140. They are not under any legal obligation to do so once the 140 is approved.
However; to protect all the people who are still there then they should revoke the 140 for people who have left so there is less burden to prove ability to pay in case uscis adds up all cases together. I work on a lot of these cases and they are pretty complicated to solve.
There was a case which we termed "baltimore" (mainly because it was decided by baltimore local office); essentially AAO said that a person can use ac21 within the same company (ie., for another job, another work location, etc.). That opened the door which some smart ass employers started to exploit. If one of their employees was eligible for ac21 they justified it by revoking 140 (even though person is still workin with them) and doing labor substitution for another candidate by thinking that first person is protected and i can use it for second person.
From a purety point of view; in your scenario since there is no labor substitution then it shouldn't be a problem; however, in pre labor substitution days if you went back to work for the company in ac21 and they used the labor for someone else then it would pose some challenges.
It isn't always to "get back" at the employee.
That being said, UN, I would love to hear your thoughts on this situation,
Person leaves employer X (140 approved, more than 180 days since 485 filing, etc.) and joins employer Y on EAD (under AC21).
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out. Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do? Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
I know that many people don't like it when their companies revoke I-140. They are not under any legal obligation to do so once the 140 is approved.
However; to protect all the people who are still there then they should revoke the 140 for people who have left so there is less burden to prove ability to pay in case uscis adds up all cases together. I work on a lot of these cases and they are pretty complicated to solve.
There was a case which we termed "baltimore" (mainly because it was decided by baltimore local office); essentially AAO said that a person can use ac21 within the same company (ie., for another job, another work location, etc.). That opened the door which some smart ass employers started to exploit. If one of their employees was eligible for ac21 they justified it by revoking 140 (even though person is still workin with them) and doing labor substitution for another candidate by thinking that first person is protected and i can use it for second person.
From a purety point of view; in your scenario since there is no labor substitution then it shouldn't be a problem; however, in pre labor substitution days if you went back to work for the company in ac21 and they used the labor for someone else then it would pose some challenges.
reedandbamboo
10-01 09:15 PM
With all the uncertainties shrouding legal employment-based immigration reform (accompanied by talk of CIR) I've been looking into other high-skilled-immigrant-friendly countries.
Canada is starting to seem a far friendlier place for folks like us - relatively short wait times in the application queue, with no country-based quotas discriminating against applicants from countries like India and China.
Canada is starting to seem a far friendlier place for folks like us - relatively short wait times in the application queue, with no country-based quotas discriminating against applicants from countries like India and China.
GCwaitforever
07-17 06:22 AM
This thread is very interesting to me. I've kind of lived though both sides, and it is really aweful for everyone but the abusive employer.
My understanding of Immigration Voice's agenda is that this group is really for people who have H1B visas and are in the country already to bring their spouses and children here with full rights to travel and work, make sure renewals of H1Bs happen so you can stay in the country, and, even better, to convert H1B visas to green cards.
My understanding is that the only reason that Immigration Voice supports increased H1B visa numbers is because people whose current visas are about to expire, and family members, are counted in these same numbers.
Please correct if I'm wrong. I really would like to get this right.
Anyway, if I do have it right, it seems to me that the AFL-CIO position (give people green cards instead of H1B visas) bridges the core concerns of members of Immigration Voice and the Programmers Guild. Whether or not everybody recognizes this is a different story, but it is good to know where the overlapping concern is, and hopefully in long term, get people talking about a solution that really does try to bridge the gap.
Members of Immigration voice are already on H-1B and would like to become permanent residents. Family members come on a dependent visa H4. H4 numbers are not counted in the overall H-1B numbers as H4 dependents can not work. H-1B numbers do not have any country specific quotas and already exclude spouses and dependent children.
Increase/decrease in H-1B numbers should be market-driven. This is my personal opinion.
The bigger concern is becoming a permanent resident. Green card numbers are limited. There are country specific quotas. Spouses and children are counted in the total numbers. Because there are more H-1B people from India and China (mostly graduates of US universities or come on H-1B directly), the queue is longer for these people and it takes even longer to get a VISA number for these folks.
Instant Green card is the Utopia. There are other practical solutions for this problem. I listed them in sequence of my personal preference. Others may choose differently.
1. USCIS processing efficiency: Many of the delays are due to USCIS and related agency processing capability. If we speed up this and increase effiiciencies, the wait would be lesser.
2. Allowing to file for Adjustment of status (I-485) without current priority date: This gives the employees a work permit and makes it easier for their spouses to pursue their own ambitions. After six months of filing for I-485, the employee is a free bird to choose different employer, for a similar job position.
3. Pre-adjudication of Greencards: This completes the ordeal of USCIS paper maze even when VISA numbers are not available. Applicants will get Green card when the VISA number is available and in the interim they will get the work permit.
4. Recapture unused VISA numbers: For the past ten years, USCIS never used up VISA numbers allocated per year because of processing inefficiencies. They should be recaptured and applied to the people waiting in queues longer.
5. Not counting spouses and dependents: When they come into this country, spouses and children are not counted in H-1B numbers. It does not seem logical to count them against VISA numbers while giving permanent residency. Spouses and children should be skipped from this count.
6. No country based quotas: Again the same argument. When H-1B holders come into this country, they are not discriminated by country of origin. While applying for permanent residency, they are in strict quotas. Why put this restriction for Employment-based immigration? It is not logical and there should not be any country specific quotas.
7. Exempting STEM: This is in the SKIL bill under consideration. Those with Ph. D, and Masters in Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics are allowed to adjust their status without waiting for VISA numbers.
8. Increasing VISA numbers: This is a quick fix solution. What guarantee does it give that we do not find ourselves in this immigration mess again after five/ten years?
If AFL-CIO supports these initiatives, it would be great for the cause of Immigration voice.:)
My understanding of Immigration Voice's agenda is that this group is really for people who have H1B visas and are in the country already to bring their spouses and children here with full rights to travel and work, make sure renewals of H1Bs happen so you can stay in the country, and, even better, to convert H1B visas to green cards.
My understanding is that the only reason that Immigration Voice supports increased H1B visa numbers is because people whose current visas are about to expire, and family members, are counted in these same numbers.
Please correct if I'm wrong. I really would like to get this right.
Anyway, if I do have it right, it seems to me that the AFL-CIO position (give people green cards instead of H1B visas) bridges the core concerns of members of Immigration Voice and the Programmers Guild. Whether or not everybody recognizes this is a different story, but it is good to know where the overlapping concern is, and hopefully in long term, get people talking about a solution that really does try to bridge the gap.
Members of Immigration voice are already on H-1B and would like to become permanent residents. Family members come on a dependent visa H4. H4 numbers are not counted in the overall H-1B numbers as H4 dependents can not work. H-1B numbers do not have any country specific quotas and already exclude spouses and dependent children.
Increase/decrease in H-1B numbers should be market-driven. This is my personal opinion.
The bigger concern is becoming a permanent resident. Green card numbers are limited. There are country specific quotas. Spouses and children are counted in the total numbers. Because there are more H-1B people from India and China (mostly graduates of US universities or come on H-1B directly), the queue is longer for these people and it takes even longer to get a VISA number for these folks.
Instant Green card is the Utopia. There are other practical solutions for this problem. I listed them in sequence of my personal preference. Others may choose differently.
1. USCIS processing efficiency: Many of the delays are due to USCIS and related agency processing capability. If we speed up this and increase effiiciencies, the wait would be lesser.
2. Allowing to file for Adjustment of status (I-485) without current priority date: This gives the employees a work permit and makes it easier for their spouses to pursue their own ambitions. After six months of filing for I-485, the employee is a free bird to choose different employer, for a similar job position.
3. Pre-adjudication of Greencards: This completes the ordeal of USCIS paper maze even when VISA numbers are not available. Applicants will get Green card when the VISA number is available and in the interim they will get the work permit.
4. Recapture unused VISA numbers: For the past ten years, USCIS never used up VISA numbers allocated per year because of processing inefficiencies. They should be recaptured and applied to the people waiting in queues longer.
5. Not counting spouses and dependents: When they come into this country, spouses and children are not counted in H-1B numbers. It does not seem logical to count them against VISA numbers while giving permanent residency. Spouses and children should be skipped from this count.
6. No country based quotas: Again the same argument. When H-1B holders come into this country, they are not discriminated by country of origin. While applying for permanent residency, they are in strict quotas. Why put this restriction for Employment-based immigration? It is not logical and there should not be any country specific quotas.
7. Exempting STEM: This is in the SKIL bill under consideration. Those with Ph. D, and Masters in Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics are allowed to adjust their status without waiting for VISA numbers.
8. Increasing VISA numbers: This is a quick fix solution. What guarantee does it give that we do not find ourselves in this immigration mess again after five/ten years?
If AFL-CIO supports these initiatives, it would be great for the cause of Immigration voice.:)
0 comments:
Post a Comment