desi3933
07-11 10:33 AM
Hi UN,
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Your last action dictates the status you are in. As the last I-94 has H1 Status, you have 30 days to start working with new employer (or apply for CoS to stay on L1). It is usually a good idea to file H1 without Change of Status if you don't know the start date. In that case you have to re-enter US on that visa to get into that status.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
I would always suggest the real dates on any form. Section 245(k) covers out-of-status issues. Why lie and caught for fraud when we have protection under law.
If caught for fraud, it can cause some very serious issues. I-485 can be denied just on this basis.
[COLOR="Red"]
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIOUS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
1. Re-entry erases out-of-status and puts one in valid status. As per section 245(k), one is required to be instatus (or out of status < 180 days) since last entry into US.
2. You were out-of-status, not unlawful presence (i.e. staying past due I-94 date). So visa can not denied on the basis of out-of-status.
3. Not sure about getting visa from Canada. Is it your first time for getting H1 visa stamp?
________________________
Not a legal advice.
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Your last action dictates the status you are in. As the last I-94 has H1 Status, you have 30 days to start working with new employer (or apply for CoS to stay on L1). It is usually a good idea to file H1 without Change of Status if you don't know the start date. In that case you have to re-enter US on that visa to get into that status.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
I would always suggest the real dates on any form. Section 245(k) covers out-of-status issues. Why lie and caught for fraud when we have protection under law.
If caught for fraud, it can cause some very serious issues. I-485 can be denied just on this basis.
[COLOR="Red"]
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIOUS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
1. Re-entry erases out-of-status and puts one in valid status. As per section 245(k), one is required to be instatus (or out of status < 180 days) since last entry into US.
2. You were out-of-status, not unlawful presence (i.e. staying past due I-94 date). So visa can not denied on the basis of out-of-status.
3. Not sure about getting visa from Canada. Is it your first time for getting H1 visa stamp?
________________________
Not a legal advice.
wallpaper girlfriend Nature Wallpaper
Macaca
12-23 10:53 AM
Pelosi's first year as House speaker marked by little change on war (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/23/MNOUU26C5.DTL&tsp=1) By Zachary Coile | SF Chronicle, Dec 23, 2007
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
The last day of the House's 2007 session last week summed up the turbulence of Nancy Pelosi's history-making first year as House speaker.
In the morning, she beamed a wide smile as she stood beside President Bush while he signed an energy bill with the first major increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
But by Wednesday afternoon, her party was facing two of its biggest defeats. To keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million Americans next year, Democrats had to abandon their pledge not to pass any legislation that increased the deficit.
Then Pelosi, whose party took control of Congress pledging to change course in Iraq, watched the House approve $70 billion in war funding, part of a budget deal that avoided a government shutdown. Members of her own party denounced it as a capitulation to the White House.
"The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, the inability to stop the war," Pelosi told reporters in a group interview in her ceremonial office just hours before the war vote. She quickly pegged the blame on congressional Republicans.
The Democrats' failure to shift the war's direction, their No. 1 priority for the year, has eclipsed many of the party's successes on other issues, including raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade and passing the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate.
And Bush, despite his lame-duck status, outflanked Democrats in the end-of-year budget fight - forcing them to accept his number, $555 billion in domestic spending, and funding for Iraq - simply by refusing to yield.
Asked about the setbacks last week, Pelosi, as she has all year, flashed her most optimistic smile and refused to be drawn into the criticism.
"Almost everything we've done has been historic," she said.
But if Pelosi is smiling, so are Republicans. They began the year defeated and demoralized. But they have since shown surprising unity, backing the president on the war and finding new purpose in blocking Democrats' spending initiatives.
"We've stood up to them every step of the way," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week.
The tense mood among Democrats in the session's final weeks was a marked contrast from the festive first weeks of the new Congress, when Pelosi was sworn in as the nation's first female speaker, surrounded by children on the House floor. She promised to lead Congress in a new direction.
Democrats took off on a legislative sprint in which they quickly approved their "Six for '06" agenda including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, backing federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and revoking tax breaks for oil companies.
But the bills bogged down in the Senate, where the Democrats' 51-49 majority is so thin it allowed Republicans to determine what would be passed. Democrats have struggled to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters, which are now an almost daily experience in the Senate.
"Pelosi suffered the same ailment that (former Republican House Speaker) Newt Gingrich suffered from when he became speaker: Senate-itis," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of what the House accomplished this year either sat in the Senate or got eviscerated by the Senate. What you are left with is not nearly as robust as what you started with."
Even the energy bill, the Democrats' crowning achievement, was stripped of a broad tax package and a renewable electricity standard that would have pushed the nation toward wind and solar power. Still, the fuel economy piece alone is expected to save 2.3 million barrels of oil a day by 2020 - more than the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.
Pelosi had to make some painful trade-offs. To get the minimum wage hike signed, Democrats had to attach it to a $120 billion war spending bill.
Other elements of her agenda fell victim to Bush's veto pen. Congress twice passed a bill with bipartisan support to expand the state children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more children. Bush twice vetoed it, forcing Democrats to settle for an 18-month extension of the current program.
Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held countless votes on war measures setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and other restrictions on Bush's policy. But their strategy counted on Republicans switching sides - and very few did.
"I didn't foresee that," Pelosi acknowledged. "We thought they would reflect the wishes and views of their constituents."
Some critics called the assumption naive. Anti-war groups have urged her to use Congress' power of the purse to simply cut off funds for the war, but Pelosi opposes the move, which many Democrats fear would be seen as undermining the troops. Instead the party has pushed for a "responsible redeployment" - meaning funding the war, but with strings attached.
In October, Pelosi's ally and the House's top appropriator, David Obey, D-Wis., said Democrats would draw a line in the sand: They would refuse to pass any more war funding without a timeline for withdrawal. But by last week, with the budget impasse threatening to shut down the government, Democrats dropped the strategy.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Democrats' mistake was not to force the threat to deny funds earlier in the year.
"I wish she could have been bolder," Woolsey said, while acknowledging that Pelosi had to mediate between competing views in the caucus. "If we had started that earlier, we could have built on it until it reached a crescendo, because it's what the American people want."
The Democrats were left in a weak bargaining position at the end of the year. They needed to pass 11 spending bills, but Republicans and Bush demanded the $70 billion for the war in return. The president also held firm on his spending limits. If the impasse led to a government shutdown, Pelosi knew her party would receive much of the blame. So she agreed to the deal, with the concession that Democrats were able to preserve money for their priorities, including home heating aid for the poor and health care for veterans.
"We made it very clear months ago we were not going to shut down the government," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of Pelosi's top lieutenants. "Tragically, that put the president in the driver's seat."
Miller said the fight over the war has obscured the progress Democrats made on other fronts, including cutting interest rates on loans for college students and passing a huge increase in veterans' benefits. He said Pelosi worked tirelessly to get the energy bill over the finish line.
"At the beginning of the year, people said we had no chance of getting an energy bill," Miller said. "This was a tour de force for her."
Pelosi also showed she was willing to buck some of her party's most powerful members to get her way. She went head-to-head with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., Detroit automakers' top ally, over raising fuel economy standards - and won. She pushed through an ethics reform bill that her friend Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called "total crap."
"Some of her colleagues when they took back Congress said, 'That reform message worked to get us elected, but now it's our turn.' " Ornstein said. "That has not been her attitude and her approach, and I give her credit for that."
Pelosi had clumsy moments, too. She pushed hard for a resolution denouncing Turkey's mass killings of Armenians during World War I as genocide, only to reverse course when it sparked a diplomatic fight, with Turkey threatening to reduce logistical support to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Republicans say she has reneged on a promise to run a more open House. Following a pattern set by the GOP when it ran the House for 12 years, Democrats have often rammed bills through, giving Republicans few opportunities to amend them.
"It's hard to work together when you're not even invited into the room," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.
But Pelosi's supporters say Republicans haven't been willing to compromise and have mostly tried to block Democrats from racking up accomplishments.
"The Republicans have frustrated us because they want to run a negative campaign saying the Democrats didn't accomplish anything," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
The bickering in Congress, over the war and other issues, has taken a toll. When Democrats took power, Congress had an approval rating of 35 percent, but it's since dipped into the low 20s, according to the Gallup poll.
Pelosi is already crafting a strategy for next year, when the presidential race is likely to take some of the spotlight off Congress. With the war debate at an impasse, she's planning to push a series of measures on health care, the economy, the mortgage crisis and global warming.
If Democrats can't win on these issues, at the very least they can draw sharp distinctions with Republicans leading up to the fall elections, she said.
"One of the reasons we were able to be successful with the energy bill is that this is something we took to the American people," she said. "That is what we have to do next. We have to go public with many of these issues."
gimme_GC2006
03-24 10:12 AM
Dude ask your employer to mail it himself to USCIS. You are not asking these documents for your timepass these are requested by USCIS so forward this mail to him and ask him to respond any ways its his responsiblity to support this GC application since it is his company that is asking for green card.
well..my current employer got email from dhs and he is sending out all details..but what about my previous employers..??
well..my current employer got email from dhs and he is sending out all details..but what about my previous employers..??
2011 2010 mobile wallpapers nature
lfwf
08-05 07:09 PM
see below
I dont know whom you are responding to but...
Then check. Context is everything sometimes.
So Eb2 does not do silly coding??!!. Get a reality check. The jobs that Eb3 and EB2 does are pretty much the same. The same monkey can do the jobs of EB2 too, so I fail to see you point.
There was no point, I said I did not believe it. I was showing the original poster that using a large black brush to tar a whole group of people is offensive and inappropriate. At least read my whole post before responding. I see I hit a nerve though. So it's ok for you t claim that EB2 means nothing and is ill gotten but not ok for me to talk about EB3?
Also, the law does not just state that there are no qualified -- there is also a willing clause. There might be Americans who can do the job, but such Americans may not want to relocate etc.
Bull crap. Don't make me open my mouth anout labor my friens. best we don't open this up.
Over the lot of arguments I have seen Eb2 claiming to be superior, please disabuse yourselves of it. I am Eb3, but I lord over Eb2, and the same EB2s lord over me depending on particular expertise and problem that is being solved, that is business. No, I am not talking about telling EB2s how to switch on their computers. I am talking about hardcore technical issues.
I'm not in IT. the more I hear IT folks go at each other, the less I think of the field frankly. And yes, i do not know about you but I met several people who came in the tech boom, whose jobs a monkey could do. Sorry, just the truth.
I dont know whom you are responding to but...
Then check. Context is everything sometimes.
So Eb2 does not do silly coding??!!. Get a reality check. The jobs that Eb3 and EB2 does are pretty much the same. The same monkey can do the jobs of EB2 too, so I fail to see you point.
There was no point, I said I did not believe it. I was showing the original poster that using a large black brush to tar a whole group of people is offensive and inappropriate. At least read my whole post before responding. I see I hit a nerve though. So it's ok for you t claim that EB2 means nothing and is ill gotten but not ok for me to talk about EB3?
Also, the law does not just state that there are no qualified -- there is also a willing clause. There might be Americans who can do the job, but such Americans may not want to relocate etc.
Bull crap. Don't make me open my mouth anout labor my friens. best we don't open this up.
Over the lot of arguments I have seen Eb2 claiming to be superior, please disabuse yourselves of it. I am Eb3, but I lord over Eb2, and the same EB2s lord over me depending on particular expertise and problem that is being solved, that is business. No, I am not talking about telling EB2s how to switch on their computers. I am talking about hardcore technical issues.
I'm not in IT. the more I hear IT folks go at each other, the less I think of the field frankly. And yes, i do not know about you but I met several people who came in the tech boom, whose jobs a monkey could do. Sorry, just the truth.
more...
Marphad
12-17 02:37 PM
Marphad,
But none of their postings (jaspreetsinghgandhi & tabletpc) had your kind of religious-politics in it!
I remember your religious quotes in "485 Approved" thread.
Guys, Mumbai attack wounds are still unhealed and morons like Antulay is trying to divert the attention is what I am talking about.
But none of their postings (jaspreetsinghgandhi & tabletpc) had your kind of religious-politics in it!
I remember your religious quotes in "485 Approved" thread.
Guys, Mumbai attack wounds are still unhealed and morons like Antulay is trying to divert the attention is what I am talking about.
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
more...
mbawa2574
01-10 06:18 AM
so.. by your logic, Al qaeda has declared war on the United states (they did, OBL issued that declaration some time in the late 90s) civilians die in each war, so alqaeda had every right to kill civilians in 9/11?
Of course not! Intentional targeting of civilians is inexcusable and constitutes a war crime and we should never cease to protest it regardless if it is done by a primitive terrorist or from the comfort of an F-16.
I am not sure why Islamic Fanatics become victims when they are attacked. Israel is 101% right in defending their territory from Palestine terror attacks. My home country is gonig through the same problem but my government won't do anything.
Similar example of Pakistan becoming a victim of terror when actually it is a factory of terror and 100% of it s population supports terror in one form or another.
Don't fire rockets if u fear trouble. Civilized world ( US,UK.Israel,India) need to come together and get a gameplan to weed out this trouble.
When those terrorists kill innocents, Islamic fanatics go silent. They only wake up when their terrorist brothers are killed.
So collateral is always in play.
:D
Of course not! Intentional targeting of civilians is inexcusable and constitutes a war crime and we should never cease to protest it regardless if it is done by a primitive terrorist or from the comfort of an F-16.
I am not sure why Islamic Fanatics become victims when they are attacked. Israel is 101% right in defending their territory from Palestine terror attacks. My home country is gonig through the same problem but my government won't do anything.
Similar example of Pakistan becoming a victim of terror when actually it is a factory of terror and 100% of it s population supports terror in one form or another.
Don't fire rockets if u fear trouble. Civilized world ( US,UK.Israel,India) need to come together and get a gameplan to weed out this trouble.
When those terrorists kill innocents, Islamic fanatics go silent. They only wake up when their terrorist brothers are killed.
So collateral is always in play.
:D
2010 2011 Nature Wallpapers
alisa
12-27 12:08 AM
So what in your opinion is the reason for the state and the government of Pakistan to provoke India, with the risk of starting a war with India that Pakistan cannot win, at a time when the economy is in a very very bad shape and there are multiple insurgencies and regular suicide attacks within Pakistan?
Not at all.
My 90 year old grandmother did this.
Not at all.
My 90 year old grandmother did this.
more...
satishku_2000
05-16 05:24 PM
That's called pandering. To unions like IEEE and hispanic vote base. These ppl don't have any interest in America's competitiveness or interests of people at large rather work in the interests of their party and their re-election.
But I am suprised at the attitudes of some forums members who want to screw the ppl behind us.
Anyway I agree, we should be worried about delays to i-485 processing if 11 million ppl are added to USCIS queue.
Hope you got me right when I asked these rhetorical questions. I dont want to screw any one behind me ... I am all for expanding american dream for as many people as possible ..
But I am suprised at the attitudes of some forums members who want to screw the ppl behind us.
Anyway I agree, we should be worried about delays to i-485 processing if 11 million ppl are added to USCIS queue.
Hope you got me right when I asked these rhetorical questions. I dont want to screw any one behind me ... I am all for expanding american dream for as many people as possible ..
hair Amazing Nature Wallpaper for
rshirodkar
10-01 09:25 AM
Hello folks,
United States was and is a SHINING BEACON in the whole world. That was the reason that this GREAT COUNTRY attracted so many people from all over the world. People from all walks of like come here because they have a DREAM to make it BIG here. But looking at the state of affairs right now, it does not seem that this country will be the SHINING LIGHT that it used to be.
I came to this country in 1999. For the last 10 years I have been residing legally, paying taxes. At the end of all this I just dont see things moving. I had lot of opportunities but I could not take them because of my status.
Looking forward, I would sincerely hope that either of the presidential candidates look at the EB category people as legal residents.
People are becoming impatient. Many of my friends went back to other countries since they are getting better opportunities. I personally feel that countries like Cananda, Australia with their immigration policies are attracting good quality talent. Also with the Indian and Chinese economy growing at more than 7% -8%, there is growth in those countries.
I hope the next presidential candidate takes these things in consideration while working on the CIR bill.
thanks
Rohit Shirodkar
United States was and is a SHINING BEACON in the whole world. That was the reason that this GREAT COUNTRY attracted so many people from all over the world. People from all walks of like come here because they have a DREAM to make it BIG here. But looking at the state of affairs right now, it does not seem that this country will be the SHINING LIGHT that it used to be.
I came to this country in 1999. For the last 10 years I have been residing legally, paying taxes. At the end of all this I just dont see things moving. I had lot of opportunities but I could not take them because of my status.
Looking forward, I would sincerely hope that either of the presidential candidates look at the EB category people as legal residents.
People are becoming impatient. Many of my friends went back to other countries since they are getting better opportunities. I personally feel that countries like Cananda, Australia with their immigration policies are attracting good quality talent. Also with the Indian and Chinese economy growing at more than 7% -8%, there is growth in those countries.
I hope the next presidential candidate takes these things in consideration while working on the CIR bill.
thanks
Rohit Shirodkar
more...
GCNaseeb
08-02 04:00 PM
Welcome back and Thanks very much for your valuable suggestions.
I have an important question for you and would request your suggestion:
Here's my situation: I am working for my current employer from last 6 years. My I-485 has been filed last week through my employer's attorney. My EB3 I-140 approved and I am on 9th year of h1-B. My H1-B expires in January next year. I have 3 other dependants on H4.
Now my current employer is trying to either fire me off or reduce my work hours to about 8 hrs / week.
What would be my best option to take decision?
1. Should I :
a. Stay home untill the expiry of 6 months and invoke AC21 after that? or
b. transfer my H1-B to some other employer and start working on H1-B and just wait for 6 months to invoke AC21?
2. Can my current employer reduce my hours legally? Meaning if they have to alter my H1-B to 8 hrs per week what will happen to my H1-B? Can i still able to transfer my H1-B to new emploer to work for 40Hrs/week if I want to?
The problem is- if they can't reduce my hours legally, I may be fired. And, if I get fired, they will revoke my H1-B on the same day but won't revoke my I-140 untill 6 months.
What do you suggest to help both me and my employer?
Thanks a lot for your valuabale suggestion and helping me out.
I have an important question for you and would request your suggestion:
Here's my situation: I am working for my current employer from last 6 years. My I-485 has been filed last week through my employer's attorney. My EB3 I-140 approved and I am on 9th year of h1-B. My H1-B expires in January next year. I have 3 other dependants on H4.
Now my current employer is trying to either fire me off or reduce my work hours to about 8 hrs / week.
What would be my best option to take decision?
1. Should I :
a. Stay home untill the expiry of 6 months and invoke AC21 after that? or
b. transfer my H1-B to some other employer and start working on H1-B and just wait for 6 months to invoke AC21?
2. Can my current employer reduce my hours legally? Meaning if they have to alter my H1-B to 8 hrs per week what will happen to my H1-B? Can i still able to transfer my H1-B to new emploer to work for 40Hrs/week if I want to?
The problem is- if they can't reduce my hours legally, I may be fired. And, if I get fired, they will revoke my H1-B on the same day but won't revoke my I-140 untill 6 months.
What do you suggest to help both me and my employer?
Thanks a lot for your valuabale suggestion and helping me out.
hot tattoo 2010 wallpaper pc
sanju
05-17 10:15 AM
I am not saying everyone else are less skilled that me. Read my posts please. Nor am I saying everyone are less honest than me. I am saying that people applying for an H-1B without having a FULL-TIME JOB from day 1 are DISHONEST.
I am saying that people applying for an H-1B without having a FULL-TIME JOB from day 1 are DISHONEST.
Why do I know that you do not work for a consulting company?
Conventional wisdom says, if someone is not doing what I am doing OR if someone doesn't think the way I think OR if someone doesn't look the way I look then there is something wrong with the other person. So just because you have a full time job, every consultant in the world has done a huge crime by being a CONSULTANT. If it was for you, you would propose a bill that all H-1B folks who were ever being CONSULTANTS should be hanged until death. Maybe we could pass a law to make CONSULTANT synonymous to 'SERIAL KILLER'. How does that sound???
I am saying that people applying for an H-1B without having a FULL-TIME JOB from day 1 are DISHONEST.
Why do I know that you do not work for a consulting company?
Conventional wisdom says, if someone is not doing what I am doing OR if someone doesn't think the way I think OR if someone doesn't look the way I look then there is something wrong with the other person. So just because you have a full time job, every consultant in the world has done a huge crime by being a CONSULTANT. If it was for you, you would propose a bill that all H-1B folks who were ever being CONSULTANTS should be hanged until death. Maybe we could pass a law to make CONSULTANT synonymous to 'SERIAL KILLER'. How does that sound???
more...
house hair 2010 desktop wallpaper
anandrajesh
03-24 03:31 PM
But many of your posts indicate you have a bias against Indians. You seem to be going hard against H1B and saying Indians are screwing H1Bs.
Isnt that true? If you are in the IT industry for the past 10 years you know it is true.
We, Indians are the ones who has mastered the art of circumventing the H1B process and screwing up the job market. Fake Resumes, Fake References, not working in the state where you are approved, somebody appearing in the phone interview and somebody else showing up in the Face to Face interview and what not.
I am not tainting the whole community here, and i am one of you. I agree that atleast 80% of us are Genuine, hardworking candidates. There are few chosen individuals(rest 20%) who did unethical & immoral things for their own good and we are the ones who are paying the price for this whole mess. You can chose to deny this fact and live in a world of denial.
Isnt that true? If you are in the IT industry for the past 10 years you know it is true.
We, Indians are the ones who has mastered the art of circumventing the H1B process and screwing up the job market. Fake Resumes, Fake References, not working in the state where you are approved, somebody appearing in the phone interview and somebody else showing up in the Face to Face interview and what not.
I am not tainting the whole community here, and i am one of you. I agree that atleast 80% of us are Genuine, hardworking candidates. There are few chosen individuals(rest 20%) who did unethical & immoral things for their own good and we are the ones who are paying the price for this whole mess. You can chose to deny this fact and live in a world of denial.
tattoo 2010 Wallpaper For Mobile
fide_champ
04-04 11:43 PM
We just offered for a townhome and the offer has been accepted. We are now waiting for the process to take its course and hopefully settle in the house in a month. Thanks for all those who gave their valuable suggestions/ideas.
more...
pictures 2010 hot Spring Nature
StuckInTheMuck
08-08 05:26 PM
Judy was having trouble with her computer. So she called Tony, the computer guy, over to her desk. Tony clicked a couple buttons and solved the problem. As he was walking away, Judy called after him, "So, what was wrong?"
And he replied, "It was an ID Ten T Error."
A puzzled expression ran riot over Judy's face. "An ID Ten T Error? What's that ... in case I need to fix it again?"
He gave her a grin... "Haven't you ever heard of an ID Ten T Error before?"
"No," replied Judy.
"Write it down," he said, "and I think you'll figure it out."
(She wrote...) I D 1 0 T
And he replied, "It was an ID Ten T Error."
A puzzled expression ran riot over Judy's face. "An ID Ten T Error? What's that ... in case I need to fix it again?"
He gave her a grin... "Haven't you ever heard of an ID Ten T Error before?"
"No," replied Judy.
"Write it down," he said, "and I think you'll figure it out."
(She wrote...) I D 1 0 T
dresses 2010 2010 Free Nature Desktop
krishnam70
03-26 07:59 PM
[QUOTE=unitednations;329983]
Can I PM you or is there any other way. The question has no relation to this current thread but I need some clarification.
- cheers
kris
Can I PM you or is there any other way. The question has no relation to this current thread but I need some clarification.
- cheers
kris
more...
makeup 2010 Nature HD Wallpapers 2011
another one
09-29 05:14 PM
I have been here since 1997. An Obama win may just restore my faith (which was severely damaged after Bush relection) in the average intelligence of a voter.
I know that chances of passing of a bill favorable to skilled immigrants are greater with Republicans, but there are other issues far more important to me. For e.g. with a Republican win, the chances of "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent abroad) increase tremendously. I do not want that to be funded through my tax money. Neither do i want my child to read about "creationism" in school (despite paying for all that private school fees!). These issues are more important to me than tax cuts or getting a green card sooner. just my two thoughts...
I am an Electrical Engineer by training and I manage and lead an R&D group at an American semiconductor company. We design computer-chips that enable about 50% of the world cellular phones.
I will definitely be moving out of the US when the Dems get elected as I do not think that they capable of making the politically tough but necessary decisions on immigration. They are beholden to too many populist groups and will make the immigration issue a class-based fight. I've had enough of paying taxes, creating $$ & jobs for US-based companies - I've been waiting since 1999.
I am of course thankful to the US taxpayer who has paid for my graduate school tuition and board, to the US-companies that have given me opportunities that are equal to native-born Americans, and to my American friends for their friendship and hospitality. But prudence demands that I hedge my bets and I will have to relocate to friendlier shores.
Thought I'd share my experience. Good Luck to All.
I know that chances of passing of a bill favorable to skilled immigrants are greater with Republicans, but there are other issues far more important to me. For e.g. with a Republican win, the chances of "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent abroad) increase tremendously. I do not want that to be funded through my tax money. Neither do i want my child to read about "creationism" in school (despite paying for all that private school fees!). These issues are more important to me than tax cuts or getting a green card sooner. just my two thoughts...
I am an Electrical Engineer by training and I manage and lead an R&D group at an American semiconductor company. We design computer-chips that enable about 50% of the world cellular phones.
I will definitely be moving out of the US when the Dems get elected as I do not think that they capable of making the politically tough but necessary decisions on immigration. They are beholden to too many populist groups and will make the immigration issue a class-based fight. I've had enough of paying taxes, creating $$ & jobs for US-based companies - I've been waiting since 1999.
I am of course thankful to the US taxpayer who has paid for my graduate school tuition and board, to the US-companies that have given me opportunities that are equal to native-born Americans, and to my American friends for their friendship and hospitality. But prudence demands that I hedge my bets and I will have to relocate to friendlier shores.
Thought I'd share my experience. Good Luck to All.
girlfriend 2010 free download nature
dealsnet
01-07 05:16 PM
All communists (left) people cannot digest happenings in the new world. Communism & its extremists are a cancer in the last century, by God's grace is over. Now Islamic terrorists are the new avatar. Their fate will be same as communists. This guy get money to write article and book for them,
Before blaming muslims try to understand the fact and know atleast a little history. When you have time just read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
news article written by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army.
Before blaming muslims try to understand the fact and know atleast a little history. When you have time just read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
news article written by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army.
hairstyles 2010 3d Wallpapers, 3d Nature
texcan
08-05 01:43 PM
Agree with you...
Also let me share a story ....
Once upon a time, two ferries were taking passengers to an Island called Green Land. First ferry was calle EB2 and the other ferry was Eb3. Both these ferries were jam packed with little or no room. But EB2 was in slightly better position with few spaces to spare.
These ferries were navigating at legendary slow speed because the crew and the drivers (read USCIS) were very slow. Also the fuel (read visa numbers) was not enough so now and then it needed to get some assitance from the base (read lawmakers).
The base has put out an option to move from one ferry to another. So the people in Eb3 ferry decided to swim to EB2. One who could not start cursing their fate and the ones in EB2 boat start screaming to prevent that happening.
Soon the passengers forgot that the reason why the ferries are running slow and start blaming each other.
An old man on the shore sighed and said to himself, wouldn't it be nice if these people had concentratred their effort on the right place.
Sunnysurya,
Thanks for giving me ear, and thought to my points.
Indians(myself included) were ruled by British for years, i never believed history that people can fight so much with each other that they forget to work together; now i know better.
We got to get togther and work with each other (add efforts), but sometimes we are working together but ironically against each other and net result is wasted effort.
Lets not waste energy by stopping people from actions even if we may not like their tools or techniques. Lets work more and get something done.
Thanks SunnySurya.
Also let me share a story ....
Once upon a time, two ferries were taking passengers to an Island called Green Land. First ferry was calle EB2 and the other ferry was Eb3. Both these ferries were jam packed with little or no room. But EB2 was in slightly better position with few spaces to spare.
These ferries were navigating at legendary slow speed because the crew and the drivers (read USCIS) were very slow. Also the fuel (read visa numbers) was not enough so now and then it needed to get some assitance from the base (read lawmakers).
The base has put out an option to move from one ferry to another. So the people in Eb3 ferry decided to swim to EB2. One who could not start cursing their fate and the ones in EB2 boat start screaming to prevent that happening.
Soon the passengers forgot that the reason why the ferries are running slow and start blaming each other.
An old man on the shore sighed and said to himself, wouldn't it be nice if these people had concentratred their effort on the right place.
Sunnysurya,
Thanks for giving me ear, and thought to my points.
Indians(myself included) were ruled by British for years, i never believed history that people can fight so much with each other that they forget to work together; now i know better.
We got to get togther and work with each other (add efforts), but sometimes we are working together but ironically against each other and net result is wasted effort.
Lets not waste energy by stopping people from actions even if we may not like their tools or techniques. Lets work more and get something done.
Thanks SunnySurya.
a_yaja
05-16 09:46 AM
I do grasp the concept of consultancy, thanks. You know as well as I that we are not dealing with a 'narrow group' of people misusing the current H-1B system to enter the United States as 'consultants'. The concept of consultancy businesses is great. Most of the consultant companies in the U.S. in general are well respected companies. They can even be great companies when H-1B status employees are involved. That is, WHEN THE H-1B VISA HOLDERS ARE EMPLOYED FULL-TIME, RECEIVING A FULL PAYCHECK FOR A JOB THEY APPLIED FOR WITH THE COMPANY BEFORE FILING THE H-1B APPLICATION. If a consultancy firm is not able to do that, they shouldn't plan on hiring people on H-1Bs. Likewise, people shouldn't (mis-)use H-1Bs as a means of access to the U.S. using body shops, resulting in multiple law violations such as bench time and accepting below average wages.
In your examples you suggest that I say consultancy in general is not a good thing. Of course it is a good thing. But consultants should be EMPLOYED ON A FULL-TIME BASIS TO ADHER WITH H-1B VISA REGULATIONS.
I think the H-1B visa program is a great one! It is simply sad to see it abused to the point it is today. What congress is doing is closing a very exploited loophole. Kudos to congress for seeing the real issue instead of, say, shutting the H-1B program down entirely!
I am not sure what your point here is. On the one hand you say that consulting is OK as long as it is on a "full-time" basis. On the other hand, you are supporting this bill which bans all forms of outsourcing and consulting. Does not matter if you are a "full-time" consultant or a "permanent employee consultant". If you are going to perform work for someother company (all the cases I mentioned in my previous posting - although case 2 and 3 are directly related to people on H1B) through the company that hired you - you will not be eligible for H1B renewal. This applies to all companies - Microsoft, Oracle, EDS, small and big engineering firms that perform safety audits, etc.
In your examples you suggest that I say consultancy in general is not a good thing. Of course it is a good thing. But consultants should be EMPLOYED ON A FULL-TIME BASIS TO ADHER WITH H-1B VISA REGULATIONS.
I think the H-1B visa program is a great one! It is simply sad to see it abused to the point it is today. What congress is doing is closing a very exploited loophole. Kudos to congress for seeing the real issue instead of, say, shutting the H-1B program down entirely!
I am not sure what your point here is. On the one hand you say that consulting is OK as long as it is on a "full-time" basis. On the other hand, you are supporting this bill which bans all forms of outsourcing and consulting. Does not matter if you are a "full-time" consultant or a "permanent employee consultant". If you are going to perform work for someother company (all the cases I mentioned in my previous posting - although case 2 and 3 are directly related to people on H1B) through the company that hired you - you will not be eligible for H1B renewal. This applies to all companies - Microsoft, Oracle, EDS, small and big engineering firms that perform safety audits, etc.
nogc_noproblem
08-06 06:34 PM
I recently picked a new primary care doctor. After two visits and exhaustive lab tests...
..., he said I was doing 'fairly well' for my age.
A little concerned about that comment, I couldn't resist asking him, 'Do you think I'll live to be 80?'
He asked, 'Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer or wine?' 'Oh no,' I replied. 'I'm not doing drugs, either!'
Then he asked, 'Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs? 'I said, 'No, my former doctor said that all red meat is very unhealthy!'
Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, sailing, hiking, or bicycling?'
'No, I don't,' I said
He asked, 'Do you gamble, or drive fast cars?' 'No,' I said. He looked at me and said,....
'Then, why do you even care?'
..., he said I was doing 'fairly well' for my age.
A little concerned about that comment, I couldn't resist asking him, 'Do you think I'll live to be 80?'
He asked, 'Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer or wine?' 'Oh no,' I replied. 'I'm not doing drugs, either!'
Then he asked, 'Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs? 'I said, 'No, my former doctor said that all red meat is very unhealthy!'
Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, sailing, hiking, or bicycling?'
'No, I don't,' I said
He asked, 'Do you gamble, or drive fast cars?' 'No,' I said. He looked at me and said,....
'Then, why do you even care?'
0 comments:
Post a Comment