dummgelauft
08-21 11:33 AM
Uscis has done nothing wrong.
This person who posted the new thread seems to have come in to the country without even a passport. How is that legal?
How in the world can we expect Uscis to overlook all that? Don't criticize uscis for doing their job right (for once) :)
Canadians DO NOT need a passport, even now, to enter US for PLEASURE (visiting friends, vacation etc.).
HOWEVER, they do need visa to (which means a passport) to (1) Study (2) Work (3) Start a business etc in US.
If this person was a Canadian, and had a US citizen fiancee, it should have been a simple case of gettng a K1 fiancee visa and coming to US. Getting any kind of US visa is really very simple and quick for a Canadian citizen
This person who posted the new thread seems to have come in to the country without even a passport. How is that legal?
How in the world can we expect Uscis to overlook all that? Don't criticize uscis for doing their job right (for once) :)
Canadians DO NOT need a passport, even now, to enter US for PLEASURE (visiting friends, vacation etc.).
HOWEVER, they do need visa to (which means a passport) to (1) Study (2) Work (3) Start a business etc in US.
If this person was a Canadian, and had a US citizen fiancee, it should have been a simple case of gettng a K1 fiancee visa and coming to US. Getting any kind of US visa is really very simple and quick for a Canadian citizen
wallpaper Pictures Of Justin Bieber New
jkays94
07-10 02:39 AM
It seems several persons are already discrediting the lawsuit and from the comments I have seen, it is apparent that some have not read the entire complaint.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
alisa
01-21 11:13 AM
Assuming everyone stays the course, under these timelines
1. At least 5% of applicants will be sponsored by their American children.
2. Another 5% will have their first million and move to the investor's category.
The timelines would be a maximum of 20 years or so, at which point people would be sponsored by their children.
Ok. So thats a 10 percent decrease in accumulation rate.
Lets add another 10 percent decrease to that. These will be 10 percent that commit suicide, suffer a lay-off, or just pack up and go back.
So, the accumulation rate decreases to 15600, the initial backlogs from 2001, and 2002 also decreased to 80 percent their currently assumed values. Following are the results. Good news. Wait time decreases. Bad news, you still have to send your dependents back as we are not counting them.
The timelines are now less than 20 years.
For India. (ROW wait times are less than 5-10 years anyway according to this model)
YApp YC(New) YC(Old)
2001 2011 2013
2002 2015 2018
2003 2016 2020
2004 2018 2022
2005 2020 2024
2006 2021 2026
2007 2023 2028
2008 2024 2030
2009 2026 2032
2010 2027 2034
In anycase, there is a point to this exercise.
I don't want to pull numbers out of my ass. I want to make a good faith effort in estimating what the wait times would be with things being the way they are. A reasonable model should show that for Indians, the situation is hopeless. For others, the situation is painful. The current model shows that. I just want to give this some time, and get the best feedback and incorporate that in it.
Maybe, then I will be able to convince people (especially from India) to get active, and stop being ignoramuses asking innocently 'Oh! Is the situation really that bad?'
If anyone has any ideas on modelling EB-2 vs EB-3 for India, that would also be helpful. Given some data, simple math should give us good enough estimates.
1. At least 5% of applicants will be sponsored by their American children.
2. Another 5% will have their first million and move to the investor's category.
The timelines would be a maximum of 20 years or so, at which point people would be sponsored by their children.
Ok. So thats a 10 percent decrease in accumulation rate.
Lets add another 10 percent decrease to that. These will be 10 percent that commit suicide, suffer a lay-off, or just pack up and go back.
So, the accumulation rate decreases to 15600, the initial backlogs from 2001, and 2002 also decreased to 80 percent their currently assumed values. Following are the results. Good news. Wait time decreases. Bad news, you still have to send your dependents back as we are not counting them.
The timelines are now less than 20 years.
For India. (ROW wait times are less than 5-10 years anyway according to this model)
YApp YC(New) YC(Old)
2001 2011 2013
2002 2015 2018
2003 2016 2020
2004 2018 2022
2005 2020 2024
2006 2021 2026
2007 2023 2028
2008 2024 2030
2009 2026 2032
2010 2027 2034
In anycase, there is a point to this exercise.
I don't want to pull numbers out of my ass. I want to make a good faith effort in estimating what the wait times would be with things being the way they are. A reasonable model should show that for Indians, the situation is hopeless. For others, the situation is painful. The current model shows that. I just want to give this some time, and get the best feedback and incorporate that in it.
Maybe, then I will be able to convince people (especially from India) to get active, and stop being ignoramuses asking innocently 'Oh! Is the situation really that bad?'
If anyone has any ideas on modelling EB-2 vs EB-3 for India, that would also be helpful. Given some data, simple math should give us good enough estimates.
2011 Crazy Sanja justin bieber new
virginian99
06-13 01:05 PM
Looks like Cirus is comming back. we should plan for our EB provisions...
Sens. McConnell & Lott on verge of passing amnesty -- unless you get in their way
THE U.S. HOUSE TODAY is dealing with many important immigration matters as it amends the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Your NumbersUSA Capitol Hill Team is following this closely. You can follow all amendments and votes on our special VOTE DAY page. We update at least by the hour. If you see something you want to support or oppose, don't hesitate to call your U.S. Rep.
TO BEST FIGHT THE SENATE AMNESTY, read Rosemary Jenks' short summary of all the key elements of the S. 1348 Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill as introduced. Scroll down to BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
Read short descriptions of all amendments the Senate has already passed to modify the bill. Scroll down to FINISHED VOTES.
Friends,
I regret to tell you that our victory of last Thursday night has eroded to almost nothing by this morning.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi have succeeded in twisting nearly enough GOP arms to assure Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) that they can deliver the votes to pass his S. 1348 amnesty for 12-20 million illegal aliens.
Here is the pitch that McConnell and Lott are said to be using -- and the pitch that only you can persuade Republican Senators to reject:
Lawmakers are being told that they must agree to vote for cloture on the amnesty in exchange for a chance to have some favorite amendments brought up OR they will lose a chance to "sit at the table" in final fashioning of this bill.
A senior GOP leadership aide confirmed that anti-amnesty Republicans are being told by Party leadership that they “need to get on board if they want to remain relevant.”
I have some actions related to Democratic Senators that I'll detail further in this email. But our most urgent work today is with GOP Senators.
NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU HAVE PHONED IN THE LAST MONTH, YOUR PHONE CALLS ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED TODAY.
CALL SENATORS IN D.C.
202-224-3121
(If you live in Mississippi and Kentucky, I've already sent you your action opportunities. You have to take responsibility for the two Senators who at this moment are competing for the title of America's No. 1 and No. 2 Enemy. I am sending this alert to you so you have the additional information that is in it.)
TELL GOP SENATORS TO REFUSE 'A SEAT AT THE TABLE' AND TO REMAIN 'RELEVANT' BY PROTECTING THE WORKERS AND VOTERS OF THEIR STATE
Call their offices and tell them you have heard of the 'take-it-or-leave-it' deal they are being offered and that your advice is:
"Refuse a Seat at The Table If All They're Serving Is Rancid Mush."
Tell them that permanently legalizing 12-20 million illegal aliens and giving them permanent access to our jobs is a dish not worth fussing over. No amount of seasoning or ingredient changing can make this dish palatable to the voters of your state.
Any amendment that would truly protect Americans would be killed by the Bush/Kennedy coalition.
No matter how many amendments are allowed for votes, the end result bill will be terrible -- maybe slightly less terrible than now, but still terrible. There is no point in trading away a YES vote on cloture for the chance to offer an amendment.
You must make it clear to every one of these Senators that they will be made to pay politically over and over the next year (maybe their whole careers) for a YES vote if this bill comes up again on cloture.
Remind them that Sen. McCain has seen his front-runner status in the Presidential primary race plummet because of his highly public support for this bill.
Why would any of these Senators want to carry around that same kind of baggage?
And tell your Senators that they have all the "relevance" they need by being the representative or your state in the U.S. Senate. They don't need George Bush or Karl Rove to give them relevance, especially if relevance has to come at the expense of principle.
EXPOSE AND CHALLENGE THE LIES THAT POLLS SHOW AMERICANS SUPPORT THIS AMNESTY
Yet more news media polls are being released purporting to show that the majority of the public supports this Senate amnesty bill. The big use of these polls by reporters and open-borders advocates is to supposedly prove that all of your phone calls are just a loud-mouthed minority.
The fact is that nearly all the media polls fail to offer people the choice of Attrition Through Enforcement.
When Americans are offered a choice between legalization, attrition or mass deportations, most Americans choose attrition. And an overhwelming portion choose either attrition or mass deportation.
You can find great backing of what I just said by going to our web page on polls.
OUR ARMY IS GROWING -- Let's Hold Back Disaster While We Recruit Another Army of Reinforcements
I hope you feel encouraged to know that another 4,081 Americans registered with NumbersUSA and immediately began faxing and phoning -- that was just yesterday, one day.
Day after day, the word is getting out. More and more Americans understand that they must take real action if they are to save their American quality of life.
We started the year with around 250,000 activist members. Barely a month ago, we hit the big 300,000 milestone. It looks like we will hit the 400,000 mark tomorrow!
In addition, we have a total email list of more than 1.5 million now.
Unfortunately, not everybody who connects, becomes a direct activist with us (although we assume they are having some influence among their friends and colleagues). And not all who register as activist members respond regularly to our Alerts. We know we probably need to have 2 million activist members to ensure that 500,000 are acting at any point. This is true of any organization. But we appreciate every one of you for whatever you are able to do. It all adds up to something strong.
Numbers of faxes you ordered the last two days:
Tuesday -- 89,776 faxes
Monday -- 61,647 faxes
HOLD ONTO OUR DEMOCRATIC ANTI-AMNESTY VOTES
It is imperative that we hold onto at least 9 of the 12 Democratic and Independent NO votes we got last Thursday on the cloture vote.
Phone these offices and urge them not to be taken in by the Republican leadership's pandering to Big Business lobbyists who are demanding to keep employing their 7-million-plus illegal workers and are demanding an amnesty for all the lawbreaking by the outlaw companies in the past.
Tell these Democrats that they are standing with the American workers on this and should be proud of their principled stand against Pres. Bush's dream of globalizing the American labor force.
THE 12 NON-REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED AGAINST AMNESTY LAST WEEK
(* Up for re-election in 2008)
* Baucus (D-Mont.)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-Calif.)
Byrd (D-WV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
* Landrieu (D-La.)
McCaskill (D-Mo.)
* Pryor (D-Ark.)
* Rockefeller(D-WV)
Sanders (I-Vt.)
Tester (D-Mont.)
Webb (D-Va.)
THE BASIC MATH
Last week, 45 Senators voted for cloture. It takes 60 votes for cloture to pass, thus ending a filibuster and allowing a final vote, which at this time would require at most 50 votes to pass.
The pro-amnesty Bush/Kennedy coalition has to persuade 15 Senators who voted NO last week to switch to YES if the cloture vote comes up again.
The only thing that can keep that from happening is an even larger outpouring of phone calls, faxes and local demonstrations at Senate offices, etc.
Sens. McConnell & Lott on verge of passing amnesty -- unless you get in their way
THE U.S. HOUSE TODAY is dealing with many important immigration matters as it amends the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Your NumbersUSA Capitol Hill Team is following this closely. You can follow all amendments and votes on our special VOTE DAY page. We update at least by the hour. If you see something you want to support or oppose, don't hesitate to call your U.S. Rep.
TO BEST FIGHT THE SENATE AMNESTY, read Rosemary Jenks' short summary of all the key elements of the S. 1348 Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill as introduced. Scroll down to BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
Read short descriptions of all amendments the Senate has already passed to modify the bill. Scroll down to FINISHED VOTES.
Friends,
I regret to tell you that our victory of last Thursday night has eroded to almost nothing by this morning.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi have succeeded in twisting nearly enough GOP arms to assure Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) that they can deliver the votes to pass his S. 1348 amnesty for 12-20 million illegal aliens.
Here is the pitch that McConnell and Lott are said to be using -- and the pitch that only you can persuade Republican Senators to reject:
Lawmakers are being told that they must agree to vote for cloture on the amnesty in exchange for a chance to have some favorite amendments brought up OR they will lose a chance to "sit at the table" in final fashioning of this bill.
A senior GOP leadership aide confirmed that anti-amnesty Republicans are being told by Party leadership that they “need to get on board if they want to remain relevant.”
I have some actions related to Democratic Senators that I'll detail further in this email. But our most urgent work today is with GOP Senators.
NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU HAVE PHONED IN THE LAST MONTH, YOUR PHONE CALLS ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED TODAY.
CALL SENATORS IN D.C.
202-224-3121
(If you live in Mississippi and Kentucky, I've already sent you your action opportunities. You have to take responsibility for the two Senators who at this moment are competing for the title of America's No. 1 and No. 2 Enemy. I am sending this alert to you so you have the additional information that is in it.)
TELL GOP SENATORS TO REFUSE 'A SEAT AT THE TABLE' AND TO REMAIN 'RELEVANT' BY PROTECTING THE WORKERS AND VOTERS OF THEIR STATE
Call their offices and tell them you have heard of the 'take-it-or-leave-it' deal they are being offered and that your advice is:
"Refuse a Seat at The Table If All They're Serving Is Rancid Mush."
Tell them that permanently legalizing 12-20 million illegal aliens and giving them permanent access to our jobs is a dish not worth fussing over. No amount of seasoning or ingredient changing can make this dish palatable to the voters of your state.
Any amendment that would truly protect Americans would be killed by the Bush/Kennedy coalition.
No matter how many amendments are allowed for votes, the end result bill will be terrible -- maybe slightly less terrible than now, but still terrible. There is no point in trading away a YES vote on cloture for the chance to offer an amendment.
You must make it clear to every one of these Senators that they will be made to pay politically over and over the next year (maybe their whole careers) for a YES vote if this bill comes up again on cloture.
Remind them that Sen. McCain has seen his front-runner status in the Presidential primary race plummet because of his highly public support for this bill.
Why would any of these Senators want to carry around that same kind of baggage?
And tell your Senators that they have all the "relevance" they need by being the representative or your state in the U.S. Senate. They don't need George Bush or Karl Rove to give them relevance, especially if relevance has to come at the expense of principle.
EXPOSE AND CHALLENGE THE LIES THAT POLLS SHOW AMERICANS SUPPORT THIS AMNESTY
Yet more news media polls are being released purporting to show that the majority of the public supports this Senate amnesty bill. The big use of these polls by reporters and open-borders advocates is to supposedly prove that all of your phone calls are just a loud-mouthed minority.
The fact is that nearly all the media polls fail to offer people the choice of Attrition Through Enforcement.
When Americans are offered a choice between legalization, attrition or mass deportations, most Americans choose attrition. And an overhwelming portion choose either attrition or mass deportation.
You can find great backing of what I just said by going to our web page on polls.
OUR ARMY IS GROWING -- Let's Hold Back Disaster While We Recruit Another Army of Reinforcements
I hope you feel encouraged to know that another 4,081 Americans registered with NumbersUSA and immediately began faxing and phoning -- that was just yesterday, one day.
Day after day, the word is getting out. More and more Americans understand that they must take real action if they are to save their American quality of life.
We started the year with around 250,000 activist members. Barely a month ago, we hit the big 300,000 milestone. It looks like we will hit the 400,000 mark tomorrow!
In addition, we have a total email list of more than 1.5 million now.
Unfortunately, not everybody who connects, becomes a direct activist with us (although we assume they are having some influence among their friends and colleagues). And not all who register as activist members respond regularly to our Alerts. We know we probably need to have 2 million activist members to ensure that 500,000 are acting at any point. This is true of any organization. But we appreciate every one of you for whatever you are able to do. It all adds up to something strong.
Numbers of faxes you ordered the last two days:
Tuesday -- 89,776 faxes
Monday -- 61,647 faxes
HOLD ONTO OUR DEMOCRATIC ANTI-AMNESTY VOTES
It is imperative that we hold onto at least 9 of the 12 Democratic and Independent NO votes we got last Thursday on the cloture vote.
Phone these offices and urge them not to be taken in by the Republican leadership's pandering to Big Business lobbyists who are demanding to keep employing their 7-million-plus illegal workers and are demanding an amnesty for all the lawbreaking by the outlaw companies in the past.
Tell these Democrats that they are standing with the American workers on this and should be proud of their principled stand against Pres. Bush's dream of globalizing the American labor force.
THE 12 NON-REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED AGAINST AMNESTY LAST WEEK
(* Up for re-election in 2008)
* Baucus (D-Mont.)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-Calif.)
Byrd (D-WV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
* Landrieu (D-La.)
McCaskill (D-Mo.)
* Pryor (D-Ark.)
* Rockefeller(D-WV)
Sanders (I-Vt.)
Tester (D-Mont.)
Webb (D-Va.)
THE BASIC MATH
Last week, 45 Senators voted for cloture. It takes 60 votes for cloture to pass, thus ending a filibuster and allowing a final vote, which at this time would require at most 50 votes to pass.
The pro-amnesty Bush/Kennedy coalition has to persuade 15 Senators who voted NO last week to switch to YES if the cloture vote comes up again.
The only thing that can keep that from happening is an even larger outpouring of phone calls, faxes and local demonstrations at Senate offices, etc.
more...
sledge_hammer
07-16 05:45 PM
This type of false propoganda makes my blood boil :mad:
ramus
07-06 03:38 PM
bump..
more...
makemygc
06-12 02:55 PM
very well said, some people here say (or is it hope) that getting an amendment introduced and passed is as simple as buying a ticket to a movie. After all the shock treatment given to us by durbin, kyl, kennedy some people just want more shock treatment
So what do you suggest exactly? Kill CIR and come up with Skill or some new bill. If in your opinion getting an ammendment itself in CIR is difficult then you can image the state of getting altogether a new bill solely for the GC, as if the senate or House cares.
In my opinion, our only hope is getting attached to a big bill, CIR or whatever. Rowing alone..we can never cross this sea of retrogression. You know the kind of funding that we have. When it comes to funding very few comes forward.
So what do you suggest exactly? Kill CIR and come up with Skill or some new bill. If in your opinion getting an ammendment itself in CIR is difficult then you can image the state of getting altogether a new bill solely for the GC, as if the senate or House cares.
In my opinion, our only hope is getting attached to a big bill, CIR or whatever. Rowing alone..we can never cross this sea of retrogression. You know the kind of funding that we have. When it comes to funding very few comes forward.
2010 2011 Justin Bieber hair blog
kumar1
07-31 03:18 PM
x
more...
caydee
04-22 01:04 AM
Quite a few number of ppl from IV attended and i do hear that some good things are going on in the background, esp with the Congressman's Guiterrez's office...Hopefully something good will happen for all of us out this....
Overall, the turnout was good. And the audience was very involved. The thing that impressed me the most was the resolve I saw in the Congressman.
The Congressman's speech also covered both family and employment based immigration issues and this, in my opinion, justifies the association of the term "Comprehensive" with the STRIVE bill. This bill, being comprehensive in nature, deserves broad-based support. I am sure we all can do our part to ensure that this happens.
Overall, the turnout was good. And the audience was very involved. The thing that impressed me the most was the resolve I saw in the Congressman.
The Congressman's speech also covered both family and employment based immigration issues and this, in my opinion, justifies the association of the term "Comprehensive" with the STRIVE bill. This bill, being comprehensive in nature, deserves broad-based support. I am sure we all can do our part to ensure that this happens.
hair justin bieber new haircut 2011
nixstor
07-03 12:26 PM
I admit, it seems discriminatory to say you can't get your GC now because you're from this country or that country but these "high volume" countries have created the current back log through their sheer numbers and sometimes multiple applications, not the system. The system is fair to ALL and for some group to say that it isn't fair because all of that group isn't getting what they want is unjust to the rest of us. I knew I would be pounced upon when I submitted my original post and it only proves my point of personal agendas; sometimes I wonder what the "I" in "IV" really stands for? Don't be so arrogant as to believe that your higher education should give you more rights than others - that doesn't fly with me! I am frustrated with this forum because of this arrogance and I may not visit too much longer!
I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!
Sheer number of applications from the high volume countries has created the backlog?? Are you saying/wishing that these people should not have come in the first place to avoid the backlog?? My friend, backlogs did not happen completely because of the sheer number of applications and gaming. Backlogs happened primarily because of wasted visa numbers and issues surrounding it. If there was no visa number wastage the priority dates would have been around 2-3 years behind as opposed to 7 or 8 years. There are gamers in every system. If a system does not work for people as it is supposed to, gamers do so to get out of the system. Not that IV condones such things but it happens in any system, when the system is broken.
The I in IV definitely does not stand for me only or for any one only. I along with V only makes sense. I by itself does not get IV any where.
So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed?
On one hand you are saying that there is a bias towards lower population countries now and you are ok with it, just because you happen to benefit from it. Is that what you mean?
If retrogressed countries are asking for 75% of the numbers reserved to them rather than having one line for all, You have a good point in saying that the bias is shifting towards retrogressed countries. There is no such provision like that. The provision creates one line depending on when you entered the line. You enter the line ahead, you get it first.
So keeping the limits intact is NOT a bias to you? You can't have it both ways. What do you think is a solution? The point system you referred to came with the same 10% limit on the retrogressed countries. What difference does it make to a retrogressed person with 96 out of 100 points, but still needs to wait for 4 years, while some one from Krakozhia walks away in 6 months with 60 points. B T W , you also said that higher education deserves more does not fly with you. I am not sure how you want points to be assigned, other than education and experience. Don't let the fear and protectionist thought take over the logical and rational thought.
The "other side" of immigration is an entirely different topic. Their issues and our issues, their path to the end line and ours are entirely different. We can't simply compare apples and oranges and call people hypocrites. That said, I personally support it and feel that it will happen at some point depending on the majority in both houses and one party will suffer for the decisions it made. As a by stander, I sympathize with the situation the "other side" has been in. I have a full plate to work on.
I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!
Sheer number of applications from the high volume countries has created the backlog?? Are you saying/wishing that these people should not have come in the first place to avoid the backlog?? My friend, backlogs did not happen completely because of the sheer number of applications and gaming. Backlogs happened primarily because of wasted visa numbers and issues surrounding it. If there was no visa number wastage the priority dates would have been around 2-3 years behind as opposed to 7 or 8 years. There are gamers in every system. If a system does not work for people as it is supposed to, gamers do so to get out of the system. Not that IV condones such things but it happens in any system, when the system is broken.
The I in IV definitely does not stand for me only or for any one only. I along with V only makes sense. I by itself does not get IV any where.
So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed?
On one hand you are saying that there is a bias towards lower population countries now and you are ok with it, just because you happen to benefit from it. Is that what you mean?
If retrogressed countries are asking for 75% of the numbers reserved to them rather than having one line for all, You have a good point in saying that the bias is shifting towards retrogressed countries. There is no such provision like that. The provision creates one line depending on when you entered the line. You enter the line ahead, you get it first.
So keeping the limits intact is NOT a bias to you? You can't have it both ways. What do you think is a solution? The point system you referred to came with the same 10% limit on the retrogressed countries. What difference does it make to a retrogressed person with 96 out of 100 points, but still needs to wait for 4 years, while some one from Krakozhia walks away in 6 months with 60 points. B T W , you also said that higher education deserves more does not fly with you. I am not sure how you want points to be assigned, other than education and experience. Don't let the fear and protectionist thought take over the logical and rational thought.
The "other side" of immigration is an entirely different topic. Their issues and our issues, their path to the end line and ours are entirely different. We can't simply compare apples and oranges and call people hypocrites. That said, I personally support it and feel that it will happen at some point depending on the majority in both houses and one party will suffer for the decisions it made. As a by stander, I sympathize with the situation the "other side" has been in. I have a full plate to work on.
more...
immi_seeker
04-09 06:32 PM
This is an "Ouch..." visa bulletin.
Dont want to be passimistic or discourage anyone; I have always been optimistic and will remain so...
However, this suggests that there will not be any fall down (previously called spillover) from EB4 and may not even be much from EB5 (Last year this was the major factor that gave 10k additional numbers to EB2 India). Lookes like people are finding alternate ways (who can) by these routes.
EB1 used up all its numbers last year and we dont know what will happen this year.
EB2 ROW usage looks low, but then again no movement in EB2 India...
Patience and persistence....
Good Luck to all of us.
EB1/EB2 demand is very low. So numbers should come from there i believe. Number crunchers could jump in and see how this EB4 demand will make a difference
Dont want to be passimistic or discourage anyone; I have always been optimistic and will remain so...
However, this suggests that there will not be any fall down (previously called spillover) from EB4 and may not even be much from EB5 (Last year this was the major factor that gave 10k additional numbers to EB2 India). Lookes like people are finding alternate ways (who can) by these routes.
EB1 used up all its numbers last year and we dont know what will happen this year.
EB2 ROW usage looks low, but then again no movement in EB2 India...
Patience and persistence....
Good Luck to all of us.
EB1/EB2 demand is very low. So numbers should come from there i believe. Number crunchers could jump in and see how this EB4 demand will make a difference
hot justin bieber new haircut
rakesh_one
03-07 11:47 AM
Guys....like everyone else I have been doing exhaustive research on this subject for last month or so.....I have resigned this week from my job and have decided to use AC21...... following are answers to some of your questions...
New Employer support - There is no need for the new employer to support the GC process.....After you file 485, the process is yours as an individual and not of any employer....All you are saying is that my I-140 was once approved with some employer and USCIS took forever (read more than 180 days) to give me my green card......so as long as your job is in the same profession (read occupational classification) you are okay....so NO, the new employer does not need to support the process....all they have to say in the employement verification letter is that we intend to hire this person on permenant basis after getting his Green Card...... Please read Yates Memo of 2005 and it will tell you all there is to know about AC21.....
Lawyer Support and Expenses------- I can imagine lawyers trying to make whatever case for asking whatever ammount of money for AC21 as that is a new business area for them?----- I do not think you need a lawyer for this.....there are plenty of letters on the net that show the template....also, if you are sure your employer is not going to revoke the I-140 then you are not even required to send the letter untill if and when USCIS asks for employement verification letter.....
As per charges from RK and Murthy...
Rajiv Khanna - $3000 for primary +$1000 per dependent
Murthy - $2000....
I have done some exhaustive research on this AC21 crap and have decided to change the employment......
You are wrong. New Employer has to support GC.
Since GC is for future employment, there should be an employer willing to hire you on the day 1 you got your GC. AC 21 helps you to transfer the burdon from one employer to other. In most cases, by providing an employement letter for a permanent job in the same or similar job, it is kind of implied that the new employer has assumed that burdon without themselves knowing it. It would help your case, if the new employer explicitly say that they acknowledge your pending 485 and would assure USCIS that they have a job up on approval 485.
New Employer support - There is no need for the new employer to support the GC process.....After you file 485, the process is yours as an individual and not of any employer....All you are saying is that my I-140 was once approved with some employer and USCIS took forever (read more than 180 days) to give me my green card......so as long as your job is in the same profession (read occupational classification) you are okay....so NO, the new employer does not need to support the process....all they have to say in the employement verification letter is that we intend to hire this person on permenant basis after getting his Green Card...... Please read Yates Memo of 2005 and it will tell you all there is to know about AC21.....
Lawyer Support and Expenses------- I can imagine lawyers trying to make whatever case for asking whatever ammount of money for AC21 as that is a new business area for them?----- I do not think you need a lawyer for this.....there are plenty of letters on the net that show the template....also, if you are sure your employer is not going to revoke the I-140 then you are not even required to send the letter untill if and when USCIS asks for employement verification letter.....
As per charges from RK and Murthy...
Rajiv Khanna - $3000 for primary +$1000 per dependent
Murthy - $2000....
I have done some exhaustive research on this AC21 crap and have decided to change the employment......
You are wrong. New Employer has to support GC.
Since GC is for future employment, there should be an employer willing to hire you on the day 1 you got your GC. AC 21 helps you to transfer the burdon from one employer to other. In most cases, by providing an employement letter for a permanent job in the same or similar job, it is kind of implied that the new employer has assumed that burdon without themselves knowing it. It would help your case, if the new employer explicitly say that they acknowledge your pending 485 and would assure USCIS that they have a job up on approval 485.
more...
house hairstyles Justin Bieber Hair
BharatPremi
10-25 11:38 AM
My PD: 07/2*/2003 EB3:INDIA:RIR
tattoo justin bieber hairstyle new.
nojoke
03-01 03:57 AM
What a lovely change. Every time Obama and his press Secy opens their mouth, markets dive into red. In this country Main Street and Wall Street are in bed with each other :-)
Obama with his sense-less economic policies, trying to separate Main Street from Wall street. Government needs to seriously lure the investors to the market , cut capital gains and taxes, take off protectionist hats and recover the economy. Then Obama can go with his socialist/populist agenda but certainly this is not the right time.:D
Stop watching faux news.
Bush has done tax cuts to the investor class and look where it has taken this country.
Obama with his sense-less economic policies, trying to separate Main Street from Wall street. Government needs to seriously lure the investors to the market , cut capital gains and taxes, take off protectionist hats and recover the economy. Then Obama can go with his socialist/populist agenda but certainly this is not the right time.:D
Stop watching faux news.
Bush has done tax cuts to the investor class and look where it has taken this country.
more...
pictures How much can Justin Bieber#39;s
pv2715
07-13 10:24 AM
It is not a contradiction to the previous statement.
Cut-off-date = 1 ==> PDs before 1st can file (i.e mar-01 cut-off date mean pds till apr-30 can file)
Cut-off-date = 8 ==> PDs before 8 can file (i.e pds 1 to 7 since they are in one bucket)
Cut-off-date = 15 ==> PDs before 15 can file (specifically pds in bucket 8-14 can file)
etc...
Hope it helps. As others predicted, I really think the numbers will not move back. You will get your GC soon.
Yagw,
I understand this is a mute point of debate for most of us and I am trying to clarify a statement made in the PDF document for the benefit of people whose PDs fall under these days. Under the operational guidelines issued, it appears that any PD that falls under days 1-7 of calendar month falls under the cutoff day 1 and so on.
Cut-off-date = 1 ==> PDs before 1st can file (i.e mar-01 cut-off date mean pds till apr-30 can file)
Cut-off-date = 8 ==> PDs before 8 can file (i.e pds 1 to 7 since they are in one bucket)
Cut-off-date = 15 ==> PDs before 15 can file (specifically pds in bucket 8-14 can file)
etc...
Hope it helps. As others predicted, I really think the numbers will not move back. You will get your GC soon.
Yagw,
I understand this is a mute point of debate for most of us and I am trying to clarify a statement made in the PDF document for the benefit of people whose PDs fall under these days. Under the operational guidelines issued, it appears that any PD that falls under days 1-7 of calendar month falls under the cutoff day 1 and so on.
dresses justin bieber new haircut 2011
gg10004
03-17 07:07 PM
PD September 2002 EB3 India
more...
makeup justin bieber new haircut
vin13
11-12 03:26 PM
Guys
So are we having a conference call or have we decided that we should individually write letter that has already been drafted.
Contact your congressman and use the draft to help get clarrification/resolution. If they cannot help resolve, but can get an appointment with a higher official then one of us can go meet them. Some of us are willing to fly/drive.. at our own expense to meet the official.
I know atleast 3 members including me who would be meeting lawmakers of our respective constituencies. When we meet the lawmakers we plan to discuss about our provisions in the CIR(Recapture, country cap,...) and then in the interim we would request them to help us resolve the quarterly spillover.
So are we having a conference call or have we decided that we should individually write letter that has already been drafted.
Contact your congressman and use the draft to help get clarrification/resolution. If they cannot help resolve, but can get an appointment with a higher official then one of us can go meet them. Some of us are willing to fly/drive.. at our own expense to meet the official.
I know atleast 3 members including me who would be meeting lawmakers of our respective constituencies. When we meet the lawmakers we plan to discuss about our provisions in the CIR(Recapture, country cap,...) and then in the interim we would request them to help us resolve the quarterly spillover.
girlfriend hot justin bieber new haircut
gc_maine2
07-13 09:37 AM
JbpVisa,
Can you please take a moment to change the SPELLING to 'MURTHY", Please its misleading to members, and thanks for posting the information.
Can you please take a moment to change the SPELLING to 'MURTHY", Please its misleading to members, and thanks for posting the information.
hairstyles Image comment: Justin Bieber#39;s
gc_on_demand
11-12 10:10 AM
We should do something like this ..
I hear Pelosi is asking for Lameduck session next week. Also heard somewhere that in order to start Lameduck session on any monday they need to send invitation to lawmakers by mid of week earliar than that monday. Haven't read so far that they will do lameduck for sure.
Pelosi is relying on Bush to give assurance that he will sign bailout for auto makers.
Anyway.. in any case if there will be session in Nov then we should see solid news 3-4 days before it. Once we get confirmed news about Lameduck session
(1) Senior members or Admins can contact Zoe's Office and find out if she is willing to push for HR 5882. If she says no and wait for some time then we can go to media awareness route and wait for some time.
(2) If she agrees I will make a list of all members of Judiciary committee whom we can start calling.
(3) Also we can have list of member of house and senate whom we can call.
(4) Meanwhile we will start a new funding drive along with call campaign. People will be motivated to donate if they see some movement. If we ask for money right now even 1 or 5 USD no one will donate it but once they see some movement people starts giving money.
(5) IV core team can ask support from competeamerica and other group.
(6) Other members who are in media industry can make awareness in media about our case with housing crisis.
I hear Pelosi is asking for Lameduck session next week. Also heard somewhere that in order to start Lameduck session on any monday they need to send invitation to lawmakers by mid of week earliar than that monday. Haven't read so far that they will do lameduck for sure.
Pelosi is relying on Bush to give assurance that he will sign bailout for auto makers.
Anyway.. in any case if there will be session in Nov then we should see solid news 3-4 days before it. Once we get confirmed news about Lameduck session
(1) Senior members or Admins can contact Zoe's Office and find out if she is willing to push for HR 5882. If she says no and wait for some time then we can go to media awareness route and wait for some time.
(2) If she agrees I will make a list of all members of Judiciary committee whom we can start calling.
(3) Also we can have list of member of house and senate whom we can call.
(4) Meanwhile we will start a new funding drive along with call campaign. People will be motivated to donate if they see some movement. If we ask for money right now even 1 or 5 USD no one will donate it but once they see some movement people starts giving money.
(5) IV core team can ask support from competeamerica and other group.
(6) Other members who are in media industry can make awareness in media about our case with housing crisis.
rayoflight
06-15 10:02 AM
I meant can we get a list of all the states the emails have been sent by all the members.
The mail will only be sent to your US Senators from your state.
The mail will only be sent to your US Senators from your state.
paskal
12-26 04:28 PM
the account can be opened in 1 sec
i just have to click the button
yjey have it all set up and ready
but below they have a statement that says" only citizens and permanent residents can use this facility"
Business needs define rules in this country. Western Union was sending money to mexico. Then American Banks started chipping into that business, accepting different documents as valid for money transfer. You get the drift.
As for Citi bank not opening e-accounts for existing account holders, it is a bit surprising. Once they vetted you in the process, they are repeating it just to verify your identity? My bank lets me open different accounts online as I am known to them for a long long time.
i just have to click the button
yjey have it all set up and ready
but below they have a statement that says" only citizens and permanent residents can use this facility"
Business needs define rules in this country. Western Union was sending money to mexico. Then American Banks started chipping into that business, accepting different documents as valid for money transfer. You get the drift.
As for Citi bank not opening e-accounts for existing account holders, it is a bit surprising. Once they vetted you in the process, they are repeating it just to verify your identity? My bank lets me open different accounts online as I am known to them for a long long time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment