punjabi
08-08 07:53 PM
hey, this happened right in front of eyes!! I can NEVER EVER forget it!!
My colleague was getting laid off in a month, so she was trying to find a project elsewhere. She was sitting a few yards away from me when she got a call for an interview. And I saw her coming towards me with a total white face (if there is an expression like this).
I asked her what happened..
She said "How can they do that?"
"This is not good."
"Don't they know how to talk to a woman?"
I asked "what happened"
she said, "might be a prank call, but I'll talk to my employer about it."
Her next sentence had me rolling over the floor for the next hour.
She said "After asking some technical questions, they wanted to ask some general ones"
and he asked "why is a manhole round?"
She LITERALLY had no meaning for manhole (gutter/sewerage can). And you can imagine her embarassement when I told her!
Abe.. lets call it "manhole".
coz these days the environment is no better than that :D:D:D
My colleague was getting laid off in a month, so she was trying to find a project elsewhere. She was sitting a few yards away from me when she got a call for an interview. And I saw her coming towards me with a total white face (if there is an expression like this).
I asked her what happened..
She said "How can they do that?"
"This is not good."
"Don't they know how to talk to a woman?"
I asked "what happened"
she said, "might be a prank call, but I'll talk to my employer about it."
Her next sentence had me rolling over the floor for the next hour.
She said "After asking some technical questions, they wanted to ask some general ones"
and he asked "why is a manhole round?"
She LITERALLY had no meaning for manhole (gutter/sewerage can). And you can imagine her embarassement when I told her!
Abe.. lets call it "manhole".
coz these days the environment is no better than that :D:D:D
wallpaper cell phone wallpapers with
Macaca
05-20 06:13 PM
The United States v Canada (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration) The Economist
AS A matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
It's well-known that Canada is an outlier among immigrant nations, but it is nonetheless interesting to consider in reference to the ongoing and heated debate about immigration in the United States. Why is Canadian public opinion so different from views in United States?
At a conference yesterday, Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration�to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees. They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers, Mr Reitz said, and they benefit from programmes and services created specially for immigrants, such as language training. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Canada's immigrants, being high-skilled, are net contributors.
Mr Reitz's second explanation was that Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. In one public opinion poll, Mr Reitz said, multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley, picked up this theme. There wasn't such a thing as a purely Canadian passport, she said, until 1947. Canada was, psychosocially, very much a part of the British commonwealth until quite recently. When it came time to create a distinctively Canadian identity, the country included a large and vocal Francophone minority (as well as a considerable number of first peoples). The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today.
Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. Like the United States, it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime, unemployment and income inequality. But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. To put it another way, the United States's buffer zone from the eager masses is a shallow river. Canada's is the United States. That reduces unauthorised migration to Canada and eases public anxiety about it. Canada also has a smaller population and lower birth rate than the United States�it needs immigrants for population growth.
Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the United States and Canada. The United States supports pluralism and in some respect this leads to similar structures in the two countries. (Ms Bloemraad mentioned that both the United States and Canada have unusually robust legal protections against discrimination, for example.) But in the United States, you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. When the normative argument arises here, it has a humanitarian dimension. I would posit that in the United States, identity is a right, not a value.
Still, looking at Canada, we can extrapolate a few things for the United States. The first is that, as we've previously discussed here, the United States really should be more open to high-skilled immigrants. They're good for the economy, and an uptick in demonstrably uncontroversial immigrants might mitigate anxiety about the group as a whole. Another is that while there may be benefits to the tacit acceptance of undocumented immigration�the United States acquires an immigrant labour force without making any accommodations for the population�there are also foregone opportunities. One of these, compared to the Canadian approach, is in the United States's ability to foster integration through language training or other settlement programmes.
Losing (but Loving) the Green Card Lottery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20mounk.html) By YASCHA MOUNK | New York Times
We Need Sane Immigration Reform (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330110520111554.html) Letters | Wall Street Journal
U.S. to investigate Secure Communities deportation program (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secure-communities-20110519,0,3087175.story) By Lee Romney | Los Angeles Times
AS A matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
It's well-known that Canada is an outlier among immigrant nations, but it is nonetheless interesting to consider in reference to the ongoing and heated debate about immigration in the United States. Why is Canadian public opinion so different from views in United States?
At a conference yesterday, Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration�to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees. They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers, Mr Reitz said, and they benefit from programmes and services created specially for immigrants, such as language training. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Canada's immigrants, being high-skilled, are net contributors.
Mr Reitz's second explanation was that Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. In one public opinion poll, Mr Reitz said, multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley, picked up this theme. There wasn't such a thing as a purely Canadian passport, she said, until 1947. Canada was, psychosocially, very much a part of the British commonwealth until quite recently. When it came time to create a distinctively Canadian identity, the country included a large and vocal Francophone minority (as well as a considerable number of first peoples). The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today.
Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. Like the United States, it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime, unemployment and income inequality. But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. To put it another way, the United States's buffer zone from the eager masses is a shallow river. Canada's is the United States. That reduces unauthorised migration to Canada and eases public anxiety about it. Canada also has a smaller population and lower birth rate than the United States�it needs immigrants for population growth.
Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the United States and Canada. The United States supports pluralism and in some respect this leads to similar structures in the two countries. (Ms Bloemraad mentioned that both the United States and Canada have unusually robust legal protections against discrimination, for example.) But in the United States, you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. When the normative argument arises here, it has a humanitarian dimension. I would posit that in the United States, identity is a right, not a value.
Still, looking at Canada, we can extrapolate a few things for the United States. The first is that, as we've previously discussed here, the United States really should be more open to high-skilled immigrants. They're good for the economy, and an uptick in demonstrably uncontroversial immigrants might mitigate anxiety about the group as a whole. Another is that while there may be benefits to the tacit acceptance of undocumented immigration�the United States acquires an immigrant labour force without making any accommodations for the population�there are also foregone opportunities. One of these, compared to the Canadian approach, is in the United States's ability to foster integration through language training or other settlement programmes.
Losing (but Loving) the Green Card Lottery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20mounk.html) By YASCHA MOUNK | New York Times
We Need Sane Immigration Reform (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330110520111554.html) Letters | Wall Street Journal
U.S. to investigate Secure Communities deportation program (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secure-communities-20110519,0,3087175.story) By Lee Romney | Los Angeles Times
unitednations
08-09 01:38 PM
UN,
Did you face any questions about "Same or Similar" in the interview particularly for the time period when you were self employed?
Can you throw some light on how to handle the scenarios where the proferred wage is much lower than the current wage and once someone invokes AC21 the offered wage can be much higher . I understand that this scenario can be problematic in case of "future job" GCs.
My understanding of AC21 is this .. Dont invoke AC21 unless otherwise absolutely necessary?
This has been written about to many times. You need to research this on immigration.com.
As I said in the law while 485 is pending you do not have to do anything; you can do something totally irrelevant to what your employment is going to be upon greencard approval.
However; uscis starts digging into intent. I wasn't porting to self employment. I was porting to a different company upon greencard approval.
they were going to try to assess that if I was making too much money then how would i take another job with lower salary.
I personally don't agree with porting to self employment upon greencard approval (many have but we'll see if they should tighten it up). If you are a one person company; then how can the job be same/similar. You would have been doing the finance, marketing and the software engineer work. That in itself wouldn't make it a same/similar job.
My labor wasn't broad. if they were looking at same/similar; it would have been impossible for me to meet it. The position I had and the job duties were probably only available in maybe less then 25 companies. (one of the job duties was administering offshore investment companies).
Now; keep in mind; greencard meant absolutely nothing to me. I got into this because of what happened to my 140 and i took it as a challenge from uscis.
Did you face any questions about "Same or Similar" in the interview particularly for the time period when you were self employed?
Can you throw some light on how to handle the scenarios where the proferred wage is much lower than the current wage and once someone invokes AC21 the offered wage can be much higher . I understand that this scenario can be problematic in case of "future job" GCs.
My understanding of AC21 is this .. Dont invoke AC21 unless otherwise absolutely necessary?
This has been written about to many times. You need to research this on immigration.com.
As I said in the law while 485 is pending you do not have to do anything; you can do something totally irrelevant to what your employment is going to be upon greencard approval.
However; uscis starts digging into intent. I wasn't porting to self employment. I was porting to a different company upon greencard approval.
they were going to try to assess that if I was making too much money then how would i take another job with lower salary.
I personally don't agree with porting to self employment upon greencard approval (many have but we'll see if they should tighten it up). If you are a one person company; then how can the job be same/similar. You would have been doing the finance, marketing and the software engineer work. That in itself wouldn't make it a same/similar job.
My labor wasn't broad. if they were looking at same/similar; it would have been impossible for me to meet it. The position I had and the job duties were probably only available in maybe less then 25 companies. (one of the job duties was administering offshore investment companies).
Now; keep in mind; greencard meant absolutely nothing to me. I got into this because of what happened to my 140 and i took it as a challenge from uscis.
2011 hot Free put-my-phone-down.gif
GC_US_64
12-26 04:29 PM
Kudlow and company are airing a debate on Lou Dobbs Goofy economics and skewed numbers at 5pm eastern time.
more...
mrajatish
07-08 07:22 PM
There are a lot of protections in immigration law for us beneficiaries.
When we quote laws; we generally are looking for specific items that may benefit us.
However; uscis uses or misuses other parts of immigration law to override these friendly type aspects.
Every piece of paper a person signs and sends to uscis is done under "penalty of perjury". Even though there is protection such as 245k; uscis can use the "perjury" and document fraud to override all of these friendly type policies. If they think a person is dirty or trying to get away with something then they will dig even harder until they find something. I remember as an auditor; a company wanted to fire their CFO but couldn't find a performance reason. Easiest way was to go to the persons expense report because everyone fudges it and this is essentially how he got fired. USCIS knows that if they dig hard into someones file they will find something.
Many people don't really understand the investigative powers uscis has or the extent they will go through. if person fakes paystubs to do an h-1b transfer; well uscis issues rfe's asking for a listing of all h-1b employees and payments made to each employee for last two years. I have seen them inter-relate this information for people who have faked these types of things.
Recently; I saw uscis california service center request state unemployment compensation reports for all employees for wages paid for the last two years. the service center actually picked four people who were paid substantially less and pulled their h-1b files and pointed this out in their denial that they coudn't trust the companies assertions on the LCA and they had to deny the petition for the current beneficiary.
All these talks of lawsuits, etc; will just make them dig in their heels more and find more things and make it more and more difficult.
Frankly, this is very very scary - I do not know what to say here. As per law, USCIS should only worry about what happenned after the last lawful admission into United States. But they can find any number of small faults in a application - after all, the application is so comprehensive that it is biased towards making small mistakes. This may not be true for people who get GC within the first 2-3 years in US but for others, they have a long enough history in US such that they will be pre-disposed to making errors.
It is best to be up front about a situation if one gets an RFE - even if one has violated certain laws, it is better to admit that and convince the officer about the circumstances leading to such violation.
My earnest prayers with you - please find a good lawyer to represent your case.
When we quote laws; we generally are looking for specific items that may benefit us.
However; uscis uses or misuses other parts of immigration law to override these friendly type aspects.
Every piece of paper a person signs and sends to uscis is done under "penalty of perjury". Even though there is protection such as 245k; uscis can use the "perjury" and document fraud to override all of these friendly type policies. If they think a person is dirty or trying to get away with something then they will dig even harder until they find something. I remember as an auditor; a company wanted to fire their CFO but couldn't find a performance reason. Easiest way was to go to the persons expense report because everyone fudges it and this is essentially how he got fired. USCIS knows that if they dig hard into someones file they will find something.
Many people don't really understand the investigative powers uscis has or the extent they will go through. if person fakes paystubs to do an h-1b transfer; well uscis issues rfe's asking for a listing of all h-1b employees and payments made to each employee for last two years. I have seen them inter-relate this information for people who have faked these types of things.
Recently; I saw uscis california service center request state unemployment compensation reports for all employees for wages paid for the last two years. the service center actually picked four people who were paid substantially less and pulled their h-1b files and pointed this out in their denial that they coudn't trust the companies assertions on the LCA and they had to deny the petition for the current beneficiary.
All these talks of lawsuits, etc; will just make them dig in their heels more and find more things and make it more and more difficult.
Frankly, this is very very scary - I do not know what to say here. As per law, USCIS should only worry about what happenned after the last lawful admission into United States. But they can find any number of small faults in a application - after all, the application is so comprehensive that it is biased towards making small mistakes. This may not be true for people who get GC within the first 2-3 years in US but for others, they have a long enough history in US such that they will be pre-disposed to making errors.
It is best to be up front about a situation if one gets an RFE - even if one has violated certain laws, it is better to admit that and convince the officer about the circumstances leading to such violation.
My earnest prayers with you - please find a good lawyer to represent your case.
jungalee43
09-28 12:39 PM
I am not US citizen and who becomes president or who the American people vote for is none of my business.
But I can't resist writing here because it is going to affect my life in a great way.
Sen. Obama's appeal of change is definitely attractive. But would he walk the talk?
He mentioned American values in the debate. All of us i.e. the EB immigrants came here on the invitation of American Employers to help American corporations and economy. I came here little over 8 years ago, not only on the invitation but on the insistence of the American employers. I paid taxes from day 1 and followed every law in letter and spirit.
My then colleagues, who were not invited, stayed back in India and have become Vice Presidents and Presidents of the companies. And they earn equal or more than what I earn here and have exactly same or better life style as I do, including the cars that I drive here. But I am stuck with the same job description and title that was assigned to me 8 years ago and all my retirement money in now with US government and none in India.
Then I've realized that once the EB immigrants, invited by the American employers, enter the GC loop, they are chosen by US immigration system to discriminate on the basis of their country of birth. People born in Timbuktu clear all the three stages of green card in 5 to 15 months. But for people born in India, this journey is simply put, 'endless'. I am myself in the last stage of green card for last five years for the only reason that I was born in India.
If Sen. Obama is really going to bring change, he’ll have to answer these core issues in the immigration system. What is broken is the respect for US values that he talked about. There is discrimination built in the system. There is no fairness, no equality and most of all no justice.
And if his fellow Sen. Durbin calls the shots in next senate then it is all over for us and may be for American employers also. If I am asked to write 100 reasons why CIR2007 failed, I would write Durbin-Grassley provisions on EB immigration from no.1 through 50. That would be followed by the disastrous points based system from position 51 through 75. (My former boss, a great maintenance manager in a huge company in India migrated to Australia under points based system. The last I heard of him was that he was a taxi driver at Sidney airport.)
If a scenario happens where Sen. Durbin calls shots in senate, Sen. Obama would be turning back on his promise of change. To bring change he may have to take the current senate democratic leadership head on. His best chances are with Republican Senate and Democratic House.
I am really really worried but still I wish all the very best to Sen. Obama.
But I can't resist writing here because it is going to affect my life in a great way.
Sen. Obama's appeal of change is definitely attractive. But would he walk the talk?
He mentioned American values in the debate. All of us i.e. the EB immigrants came here on the invitation of American Employers to help American corporations and economy. I came here little over 8 years ago, not only on the invitation but on the insistence of the American employers. I paid taxes from day 1 and followed every law in letter and spirit.
My then colleagues, who were not invited, stayed back in India and have become Vice Presidents and Presidents of the companies. And they earn equal or more than what I earn here and have exactly same or better life style as I do, including the cars that I drive here. But I am stuck with the same job description and title that was assigned to me 8 years ago and all my retirement money in now with US government and none in India.
Then I've realized that once the EB immigrants, invited by the American employers, enter the GC loop, they are chosen by US immigration system to discriminate on the basis of their country of birth. People born in Timbuktu clear all the three stages of green card in 5 to 15 months. But for people born in India, this journey is simply put, 'endless'. I am myself in the last stage of green card for last five years for the only reason that I was born in India.
If Sen. Obama is really going to bring change, he’ll have to answer these core issues in the immigration system. What is broken is the respect for US values that he talked about. There is discrimination built in the system. There is no fairness, no equality and most of all no justice.
And if his fellow Sen. Durbin calls the shots in next senate then it is all over for us and may be for American employers also. If I am asked to write 100 reasons why CIR2007 failed, I would write Durbin-Grassley provisions on EB immigration from no.1 through 50. That would be followed by the disastrous points based system from position 51 through 75. (My former boss, a great maintenance manager in a huge company in India migrated to Australia under points based system. The last I heard of him was that he was a taxi driver at Sidney airport.)
If a scenario happens where Sen. Durbin calls shots in senate, Sen. Obama would be turning back on his promise of change. To bring change he may have to take the current senate democratic leadership head on. His best chances are with Republican Senate and Democratic House.
I am really really worried but still I wish all the very best to Sen. Obama.
more...
sroyc
08-06 10:34 AM
Although the discussion has deteriorated to a point where it will not be healthy anymore, these are valid questions.
I think a good compromise would be if interfiling is allowed only if the candidate was eligible for the EB2 position at the time of filing the EB3 labor. The current rule punishes those who go to grad school full-time, especially if you did a PhD but do not qualify for EB1.
I do agree that points raised by Rolling Flood is not well received by most in this forum.But I would pray that no one gets personal and keep the exchanges healthy.
I do feel that this porting rule is a double edged sword with both pros and cons.But the question is : is it flawed enough to scrapped??
I must add though, I see were Rolling flood is coming from.Just consider this scenario: Two guyz A&B graduate with a Bachelors degree at the same time.A decides to pursue higher studies and B takes up a job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school.By the time A graduates and a EB2 is filed for him , B is also eligible for EB2.But here is the catch,B gets a much earlier PD than A.So was A a dumb dude that he decided to go to grad school.Does academic experience count for nothing against work experience???
Its something to ponder upon.
I think a good compromise would be if interfiling is allowed only if the candidate was eligible for the EB2 position at the time of filing the EB3 labor. The current rule punishes those who go to grad school full-time, especially if you did a PhD but do not qualify for EB1.
I do agree that points raised by Rolling Flood is not well received by most in this forum.But I would pray that no one gets personal and keep the exchanges healthy.
I do feel that this porting rule is a double edged sword with both pros and cons.But the question is : is it flawed enough to scrapped??
I must add though, I see were Rolling flood is coming from.Just consider this scenario: Two guyz A&B graduate with a Bachelors degree at the same time.A decides to pursue higher studies and B takes up a job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school.By the time A graduates and a EB2 is filed for him , B is also eligible for EB2.But here is the catch,B gets a much earlier PD than A.So was A a dumb dude that he decided to go to grad school.Does academic experience count for nothing against work experience???
Its something to ponder upon.
2010 Free cell phone wallpaper
Macaca
03-07 10:16 AM
Some paras from Fundraising Comes at Van Hollen Fast (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030601907.html)
By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Last year, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sat in the minority, with little seniority, calling for lobbyists to disclose when they're gathering stacks of campaign checks for members.
Now, his party is in power, he heads the Democrats' key fundraising arm, and he'll be judged in part by his ability to collect those bundles of checks from lobbyists.
The Democratic takeover last fall fostered change across Capitol Hill, but few are feeling the effects as directly as Van Hollen, the third-term congressman from Bethesda who will guide his party's 2008 House election efforts.
Van Hollen took over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in December, and the next month he distributed a four-page memo outlining his plans for protecting newly elected lawmakers. Central to that plan is the goal of raising $650,000 to $1 million for those "front line" lawmakers by June 30.
Typically, about a third of the money raised by the DCCC comes from member contributions, a third flows from direct mail and Internet solicitations and a third comes from individual donors, records show.
In many instances, that money comes from lobbyists tasked with collecting checks from colleagues, clients, family and friends -- bundlers. It's the same crowd Van Hollen took a crack at last year, when he attached his disclosure proposal to legislation in committee.
By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Last year, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sat in the minority, with little seniority, calling for lobbyists to disclose when they're gathering stacks of campaign checks for members.
Now, his party is in power, he heads the Democrats' key fundraising arm, and he'll be judged in part by his ability to collect those bundles of checks from lobbyists.
The Democratic takeover last fall fostered change across Capitol Hill, but few are feeling the effects as directly as Van Hollen, the third-term congressman from Bethesda who will guide his party's 2008 House election efforts.
Van Hollen took over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in December, and the next month he distributed a four-page memo outlining his plans for protecting newly elected lawmakers. Central to that plan is the goal of raising $650,000 to $1 million for those "front line" lawmakers by June 30.
Typically, about a third of the money raised by the DCCC comes from member contributions, a third flows from direct mail and Internet solicitations and a third comes from individual donors, records show.
In many instances, that money comes from lobbyists tasked with collecting checks from colleagues, clients, family and friends -- bundlers. It's the same crowd Van Hollen took a crack at last year, when he attached his disclosure proposal to legislation in committee.
more...
alterego
08-10 09:08 PM
Let this be an example to all those who believe that trying to get Lou Dobbs to support any cause of Legal Immigration is smart, in fact it is actually foolish. He is simply against ALL IMMIGTATION completely, most of those comentators that attack illegal immigration are merely holding back their attack on ALL IMMIGRATION because that would be counterproductive to their cause with most fair minded americans.
Computer science graduates are in short supply in the US, this is a fact despite the outsourcing. Salaries for Computer science grads. are rising in the USA and the world over. Right now there is a deficit of about 100K graduates yearly in this area in the USA. The average Computer science grads can starts at a salary of over 60K whereas most college grads. in the US start at 40-50K annually. Computer science grads, also have easily better prospects to go on to higher salaries and better opportunities within 5 yrs.Yet Lou puts the programmers guild founder on his program to bash the H1b program................all while bashing outsourcing as the sin of sins.
Lets follow his argument for a minute, no outsourcing, no outsiders in the USA, few US students joining in Computer science, all with a 100K deficit of Computer science graduates annually. To his infantile brain of hillbilly economics that means higher salaries for native born american computer science graduates. Win Win for america right? No, more importantly it is catchy and does wonders for this ratings!
Actually in reality it means Japan, Taiwan, Singapore etc. will eat their lunch. What an idiot not to see that having gone to Harvard. Perhaps I should say genius braodcaster to see a niche and exploit it to perfection as if passionate about the cause.
Thank god most americans see past this shallow thought process.....phew. If they backed his point of view, I would then be more likely to WANT to leave. The fact that his point of view still does not find a massive following gives me great faith in this great country. That his show is not matching up with other networks is enough to make me just love this country for what it is, fair minded and based on the purest capitalistic views instead of following a protectionist rant. If I have to go through years of hardship so my progeny can flourish here, I consider it a worthwile sacrifice. Thanks Lou for proving this to me every day. Where would I be without the strength you provide to me daily!
Computer science graduates are in short supply in the US, this is a fact despite the outsourcing. Salaries for Computer science grads. are rising in the USA and the world over. Right now there is a deficit of about 100K graduates yearly in this area in the USA. The average Computer science grads can starts at a salary of over 60K whereas most college grads. in the US start at 40-50K annually. Computer science grads, also have easily better prospects to go on to higher salaries and better opportunities within 5 yrs.Yet Lou puts the programmers guild founder on his program to bash the H1b program................all while bashing outsourcing as the sin of sins.
Lets follow his argument for a minute, no outsourcing, no outsiders in the USA, few US students joining in Computer science, all with a 100K deficit of Computer science graduates annually. To his infantile brain of hillbilly economics that means higher salaries for native born american computer science graduates. Win Win for america right? No, more importantly it is catchy and does wonders for this ratings!
Actually in reality it means Japan, Taiwan, Singapore etc. will eat their lunch. What an idiot not to see that having gone to Harvard. Perhaps I should say genius braodcaster to see a niche and exploit it to perfection as if passionate about the cause.
Thank god most americans see past this shallow thought process.....phew. If they backed his point of view, I would then be more likely to WANT to leave. The fact that his point of view still does not find a massive following gives me great faith in this great country. That his show is not matching up with other networks is enough to make me just love this country for what it is, fair minded and based on the purest capitalistic views instead of following a protectionist rant. If I have to go through years of hardship so my progeny can flourish here, I consider it a worthwile sacrifice. Thanks Lou for proving this to me every day. Where would I be without the strength you provide to me daily!
hair download free wallpaper for
gc28262
07-13 10:45 AM
I commend the initiative. But I see a few issues with it:
You are complaining to DOS about USCIS and DOL. That will not work. Every agency has a specific role
You are complaining to the official who sets visa dates. He has no authority to give relief just because some applicant/s are asking for it. He has to follow the rule every month and his responsibility is only to set the dates based on the statistics received from USCIS. This official has a very specific and limited role.
Who has the authority to set the spillover mode ? (Vertical vs Horizonal)
I read in some immigration forum that USCIS/DOS has switched between these at will in the past.
You are complaining to DOS about USCIS and DOL. That will not work. Every agency has a specific role
You are complaining to the official who sets visa dates. He has no authority to give relief just because some applicant/s are asking for it. He has to follow the rule every month and his responsibility is only to set the dates based on the statistics received from USCIS. This official has a very specific and limited role.
Who has the authority to set the spillover mode ? (Vertical vs Horizonal)
I read in some immigration forum that USCIS/DOS has switched between these at will in the past.
more...
sc3
07-14 05:29 PM
I definitely feel that EB3 should go ahead with this campaign. there has to be some fairness ...if we don't speak up then year after year, the same thing will happen and maybe in 2015, EB3 will get spillover visas. those who are writing against EB3 --tell me this, if a person who has come to US in 2007 and he has applied during the july fiasco ..and if he gets preference over a EB3 person who is still stuck with a PD of 2002 ..would you still say that the system is fair ???
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
yes, we should continue with the campaign. However, I am more concerned about getting what has been already made available to us. While I am willing to play by the rules and wait, I am not willing to cede my place in the line.
Asking for 2 to 1 ratio etc. is something new, and will require legislative process, on that I am not an ardent supporter, there we can just request (and hope for the best), but in making sure we are getting what we were promised is demanding the best.
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
yes, we should continue with the campaign. However, I am more concerned about getting what has been already made available to us. While I am willing to play by the rules and wait, I am not willing to cede my place in the line.
Asking for 2 to 1 ratio etc. is something new, and will require legislative process, on that I am not an ardent supporter, there we can just request (and hope for the best), but in making sure we are getting what we were promised is demanding the best.
hot pictures animated cell phone
desi485
08-05 08:06 PM
Hey Bro! Think of you this way.
You are no different than those trying to move from EB3 to EB2. They are doing this to get GC faster then others.
You are stopping others from entering in your line, to get GC faster. :p
Ultimately you both are the same.
I am sure he doesn't have a mirror, only a desire to get GC and at any cost. He is using weird arguments to reach his goal and keeping others out of EB2. In way, he is cheating himself too.
He should pay attention to real issues like per country quota, retrogression and so on.
You are no different than those trying to move from EB3 to EB2. They are doing this to get GC faster then others.
You are stopping others from entering in your line, to get GC faster. :p
Ultimately you both are the same.
I am sure he doesn't have a mirror, only a desire to get GC and at any cost. He is using weird arguments to reach his goal and keeping others out of EB2. In way, he is cheating himself too.
He should pay attention to real issues like per country quota, retrogression and so on.
more...
house Mobile Wallpaper | Cell Phone
hopefulgc
08-05 11:23 AM
I am requesting an amendment to the spelling of "mahaul".
I think it would sound better if we spelled it as "mahole" :D
:DGuys ,
The "mahaul"(environment) seems so Tense around the IV forums that I thought of making a thread to share some light humor / Jokes etc
Here are some funny quotes to start with
I don't think President fully understands this immigration thing.
Like today, when they asked him about amnesty, he said it's horrible
when anyone loses their memory." --Jay Leno
"As you know, today was Don't Take Your Immigrant To Work Day
here in Los Angeles. No, all across the nation they had a Day Without
Immigrants, is what they call it. Or, as Native Americans call it, the
good ol' days." --Jay Leno
I think it would sound better if we spelled it as "mahole" :D
:DGuys ,
The "mahaul"(environment) seems so Tense around the IV forums that I thought of making a thread to share some light humor / Jokes etc
Here are some funny quotes to start with
I don't think President fully understands this immigration thing.
Like today, when they asked him about amnesty, he said it's horrible
when anyone loses their memory." --Jay Leno
"As you know, today was Don't Take Your Immigrant To Work Day
here in Los Angeles. No, all across the nation they had a Day Without
Immigrants, is what they call it. Or, as Native Americans call it, the
good ol' days." --Jay Leno
tattoo the mobile phone wallpaper
funny
09-30 04:10 PM
I think you are right - as soon as they see I140 revocation they are doing the easiest thing, that is to reject underlying I485. They can easily check the 180 days period; alternately they can actually issue NoticeOfIntenttoDeny (NOID) and give a chance to the candidate why I485 should not be rejected - this is also equally easy for them to do (just send a letter and give a 45 day or something similar time). I think they are simply rejecting so it reduces the total pending I485 cases. It might be possible for us to open MTR and resolve this but if working on EAD we will be in soup and also MTR's typically take longer to get resolved.
I guess this discussion is going on in a different direction.. "AC21 is the focus here" while we are at it, I want to ask if someone has seen a denial, just because someone used AC21 and the I-140 was not revoked.
I guess this discussion is going on in a different direction.. "AC21 is the focus here" while we are at it, I want to ask if someone has seen a denial, just because someone used AC21 and the I-140 was not revoked.
more...
pictures free cell phone wallpaper
ssa
06-23 05:16 PM
in agreement.....there is definately pleasure in living in your own house....
Ask current underwater home owners how much pleasure are they deriving from their owned home. Day to day pleasure of living may come from the size and the quality/amenities of the house you stay in, whether you own it or rent it is immaterial. If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it? Plus "owned" house is a little bit of misnomer here. Unless you have paid it off 100% it's not really your own. Rental property is owned by landlords and your "owned" home is in reality owned by your bank. Miss couple of payments and net results are very similar.
Don't get me wrong. In rational market owning home is the easiest way to build up wealth but I can't stress the "rational" part of it enough. Although in most areas the excesses of housing bubble are washed away by now in some areas (like good school districts in Bay Area) the prices are still not aligned with the fundamentals like rents for similar properties and average annual incomes. Also renting has one huge advantage right now in this era of rapidly rising unemployment. You are mobile. You can easily move wherever you can find your next job.
In long run it is always better (IMHO) to own than to rent. But in the short term - for next 1-2 years - I see no compelling argument to buy home unless you land a steal somehow. Sentimental red herrings like "pride and joy" of ownership is definitely not a way to go about making the biggest financial decision of your life. The fact that realtors use this exact phase so often should give you a clue!
Ask current underwater home owners how much pleasure are they deriving from their owned home. Day to day pleasure of living may come from the size and the quality/amenities of the house you stay in, whether you own it or rent it is immaterial. If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it? Plus "owned" house is a little bit of misnomer here. Unless you have paid it off 100% it's not really your own. Rental property is owned by landlords and your "owned" home is in reality owned by your bank. Miss couple of payments and net results are very similar.
Don't get me wrong. In rational market owning home is the easiest way to build up wealth but I can't stress the "rational" part of it enough. Although in most areas the excesses of housing bubble are washed away by now in some areas (like good school districts in Bay Area) the prices are still not aligned with the fundamentals like rents for similar properties and average annual incomes. Also renting has one huge advantage right now in this era of rapidly rising unemployment. You are mobile. You can easily move wherever you can find your next job.
In long run it is always better (IMHO) to own than to rent. But in the short term - for next 1-2 years - I see no compelling argument to buy home unless you land a steal somehow. Sentimental red herrings like "pride and joy" of ownership is definitely not a way to go about making the biggest financial decision of your life. The fact that realtors use this exact phase so often should give you a clue!
dresses Free Mobile Phone Wallpapers
alisa
12-26 11:29 PM
Amma,Yes, we may loose people but 'proud nation' of pakistan would disappear from the map. I'm against death of innocent but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
So, you want to remove the threat of nuclear weapons by using them?
Having said that, we need to do a conventional warfare. But I guess that, it would be more of a dogfight that would bleed us economically. Meanwhile, we need to strengthen the laws but also ensure it is not abused ( corruption and bias are something that is prevalent among people with power..it wud be very hard but people with power shud be very disciplined). Diplomatically pressurize the failed nation of Pakistan and do undercover ops in Balochistan and NWFP. Collaborate with Sindhi Mujahirs and create a division between Urdu speaking Punjabis and Sindhi speaking Mujahirs and Pashutun groups.
IK Gujral stopped the covert ops. It need to be restarted.
Ironically, those steps are exactly what the right-wing Pakistani establishment is afraid that India is currently undertaking to destabilize Pakistan.
Peace,
G
Peace indeed.....
So, you want to remove the threat of nuclear weapons by using them?
Having said that, we need to do a conventional warfare. But I guess that, it would be more of a dogfight that would bleed us economically. Meanwhile, we need to strengthen the laws but also ensure it is not abused ( corruption and bias are something that is prevalent among people with power..it wud be very hard but people with power shud be very disciplined). Diplomatically pressurize the failed nation of Pakistan and do undercover ops in Balochistan and NWFP. Collaborate with Sindhi Mujahirs and create a division between Urdu speaking Punjabis and Sindhi speaking Mujahirs and Pashutun groups.
IK Gujral stopped the covert ops. It need to be restarted.
Ironically, those steps are exactly what the right-wing Pakistani establishment is afraid that India is currently undertaking to destabilize Pakistan.
Peace,
G
Peace indeed.....
more...
makeup Free Wallpapers LG Optimus Z
gcisadawg
01-07 04:49 PM
From the wikipedia:
As of October 13, 2006, the Gujarat High Court ruled formation of UC Banerjee committee "illegal" and "unconstitutional". As of now all its probe results stand invalid.
Thanks for the link, that is exactly my point. One committee/institution comes up with one story and another one denies it. It goes on and on till the common man forget the whole thing. And then a new issue comes up..
Lets wait and see how 'Supreme Court' appointed R.K Raghavan commission plays out.
As of October 13, 2006, the Gujarat High Court ruled formation of UC Banerjee committee "illegal" and "unconstitutional". As of now all its probe results stand invalid.
Thanks for the link, that is exactly my point. One committee/institution comes up with one story and another one denies it. It goes on and on till the common man forget the whole thing. And then a new issue comes up..
Lets wait and see how 'Supreme Court' appointed R.K Raghavan commission plays out.
girlfriend for mobile phones free.
rimzhim
04-08 11:17 PM
Make no mistake about it, IEEE-USA is not for any meaningful reform. They say that they support green card reform but actually they don’t. Otherwise they would have included some green card provisions in this bill, at least 485 filing provision. They make it look like they support green card reform because they do not want themselves to be looked upon as anti-immigrants. But that is who they are.
Just as an example: Ron Hira says that H1s drive down wages when they come and work here. If we go back, Ron Hira says H1s promote outsourcing. If we stay here, Ron Hira says we take jobs of people here. So no matter what we do, the bottom line is, IEEE-USA has a problem with people on H1. They have a problem with our existence, not just here, but anywhere. Why? Because they don't like competition from us. And here is another fact, guys lobbying for this bill are actually racist and they just warp their objective around the economic argument.
Again, IEEE went out of its way to get extra H1Bs for US-educated students. That alone wipes out your arguments because these H1Bs are for foreigners and these people sure will increase competition for people born here. IEEE is not only for meaningful reform, they have the power to do what they want.
Just as an example: Ron Hira says that H1s drive down wages when they come and work here. If we go back, Ron Hira says H1s promote outsourcing. If we stay here, Ron Hira says we take jobs of people here. So no matter what we do, the bottom line is, IEEE-USA has a problem with people on H1. They have a problem with our existence, not just here, but anywhere. Why? Because they don't like competition from us. And here is another fact, guys lobbying for this bill are actually racist and they just warp their objective around the economic argument.
Again, IEEE went out of its way to get extra H1Bs for US-educated students. That alone wipes out your arguments because these H1Bs are for foreigners and these people sure will increase competition for people born here. IEEE is not only for meaningful reform, they have the power to do what they want.
hairstyles Other Free Mobile Phone
Macaca
12-30 06:47 PM
China Respects European Unity (http://csis.org/files/publication/pac1062.pdf) By Jonas Parello-Plesner | Center for Strategic and Int'l Studies
The European Union can work together � at least when it is pushed together. China�s heavy-handed effort to get European nations to skip the Nobel peace prize ceremony in Oslo earlier this month did the trick. Not only did member states show up, but Serbia and Ukraine, countries with EU ambitions, were encouraged to attend as well. Yet this was atypical of a relationship in which China, with newfound power, has found it easy to divide and rule the EU.
While the European Council focused on the euro crisis last week, away from the limelight, EU leaders were adopting a new China policy. Discussion began four months ago when EU leaders took up Europe-China relations. Then the issue was overshadowed by the internal EU topic of the day: Romas. Dealing with China was relegated to short talks and coffee breaks.
This reveals a lot about the EU�s strategic outreach. The EU looks inward and seems destined to be an enlarged Switzerland rather than the missing link between the US and Asia in shaping global affairs. China has recognized this, and increasingly sees Europe as an investment opportunity rather than as a global partner.
On a recent trip to Beijing, I met a range of prominent Chinese officials and academics. Not one asked me how Europe intended to influence US strategy toward Afghanistan or about European views on the upcoming referendum in Sudan. To Beijing, Europe is not so much post-modern as post-global.
How can the EU�s strategic shrinkage be reversed? EU Council President van Rompuy�s comment in September on the need for �reciprocity� � giving to China only when the EU gets something back � was a good start. In line with this, the draft for the new EU trade policy looks at the possibility of closing off the European public procurement market if China does not give the EU reciprocal access to its market. This tough EU language has not gone unnoticed in Beijing. I was repeatedly asked about it by Chinese interlocutors. China understands a clear but consistent message.
By itself this new approach will not be enough. The EU must pursue a set of commonly agreed aims. Europe needs to set urgent, coherent strategic priorities, setting aside strategic patience and trust, the key words of the new approach.
The process of setting new trade policy priorities needs to be extended to the political realm. Member states must select a few priorities on which they really want to engage with China. Non-proliferation, climate change, good governance and human rights are good candidates.
The big players in Europe have been bypassed economically in the last decade by China. They still have traction individually but much less than their national egos afford � this is true even for Germany, which currently is on its own fast track with large scale exports to China.
The Wikileaks exposed how the US looks at the political dwarfs of Europe. The Middle Kingdom has a similar take. The feud over Dalai Lama visits in 2007 and 2008 showed that China was capable of hanging out to dry even Germany and France. The old days � the 1990s � when the EU could levy sanctions on China and enforce a change in behavior are gone. The last vestige of this era is the arms embargo. A new era has begun in which China can levy smart sanctions on European countries.
Resisting the bilateral inclination is difficult. Bilateral visits like David Cameron�s recent tour to China and the Chinese president�s visit to Paris are locked in the logic of bilateral trade promotion. But seeing links to China mainly as a bilateral issue rather than a European-wide concern means accepting a weak position vis-a-vis Beijing. China deals with Europe as it is, not how we dream it is. When European states pursue their own agendas, China will get free traders in the Northern countries to block moves that it sees as too strong, while ensuring that indifferent Southerners dilute policies on human rights.
A purely bilateral vocabulary seems increasingly anachronistic when an Airbus is assembled with subcomponents from all over Europe. Member countries must acknowledge that signing up to the EU is a binding commitment. A high-level EU official conceded that the just adopted internal strategy paper was kept relatively bland because of suspicion that it would be leaked to China. As a result, it couldn�t contain a more detailed game plan for how to secure EU interests through trade-offs and linkages.
The EU�s bilateral instinct can be overcome. The internal pressure for multilateral compliance should be stronger once the External Action Service is up and running. But the EAS is no deus ex machina. Member states must be continuously engaged to pursue reciprocal engagement with China. The European Parliament, with its new say over foreign policy, could play an important role by naming and shaming member states that subvert the EU�s strategic priorities in exchange for bilateral advantages.
A joined-up China policy is urgently needed. Events tend to overtake the EU while it ponders policy and its strategic approach. This year, it was Chinese investments in Europe, particularly in government bonds from Greece to Spain. China�s investment in Europe is a natural diversification from a dollar verdose. Chinese investment should be welcome, but the EU should be an intermediary so that this process is not framed as a bilateral favor that creates political dependency between China and member states. Eurobonds, which have been widely discussed as a solution in the euro crisis, could be a useful tool in this.
For EU foreign policy �czar� Catherine Ashton and her team, fleshing out the elements of a common EU China policy and being able to apply it in time means anticipating events and providing guidance for how individual actions and bilateral visits play to (or undermine) Europe�s strength. For example, the EU needs a code of conduct for dealing with Liu Xiaobo after the Nobel debacle. Such a code of conduct could be minimal. The important point is that it is adhered to.
Member states must make strategic choices that do not favor short-term national rewards at the expense of Europe�s strength. The member-states need to move China up the policy agenda and act in unison if they want to reap the benefits of stronger ties to China and avoid being divided and ultimately ruled.
The European Union can work together � at least when it is pushed together. China�s heavy-handed effort to get European nations to skip the Nobel peace prize ceremony in Oslo earlier this month did the trick. Not only did member states show up, but Serbia and Ukraine, countries with EU ambitions, were encouraged to attend as well. Yet this was atypical of a relationship in which China, with newfound power, has found it easy to divide and rule the EU.
While the European Council focused on the euro crisis last week, away from the limelight, EU leaders were adopting a new China policy. Discussion began four months ago when EU leaders took up Europe-China relations. Then the issue was overshadowed by the internal EU topic of the day: Romas. Dealing with China was relegated to short talks and coffee breaks.
This reveals a lot about the EU�s strategic outreach. The EU looks inward and seems destined to be an enlarged Switzerland rather than the missing link between the US and Asia in shaping global affairs. China has recognized this, and increasingly sees Europe as an investment opportunity rather than as a global partner.
On a recent trip to Beijing, I met a range of prominent Chinese officials and academics. Not one asked me how Europe intended to influence US strategy toward Afghanistan or about European views on the upcoming referendum in Sudan. To Beijing, Europe is not so much post-modern as post-global.
How can the EU�s strategic shrinkage be reversed? EU Council President van Rompuy�s comment in September on the need for �reciprocity� � giving to China only when the EU gets something back � was a good start. In line with this, the draft for the new EU trade policy looks at the possibility of closing off the European public procurement market if China does not give the EU reciprocal access to its market. This tough EU language has not gone unnoticed in Beijing. I was repeatedly asked about it by Chinese interlocutors. China understands a clear but consistent message.
By itself this new approach will not be enough. The EU must pursue a set of commonly agreed aims. Europe needs to set urgent, coherent strategic priorities, setting aside strategic patience and trust, the key words of the new approach.
The process of setting new trade policy priorities needs to be extended to the political realm. Member states must select a few priorities on which they really want to engage with China. Non-proliferation, climate change, good governance and human rights are good candidates.
The big players in Europe have been bypassed economically in the last decade by China. They still have traction individually but much less than their national egos afford � this is true even for Germany, which currently is on its own fast track with large scale exports to China.
The Wikileaks exposed how the US looks at the political dwarfs of Europe. The Middle Kingdom has a similar take. The feud over Dalai Lama visits in 2007 and 2008 showed that China was capable of hanging out to dry even Germany and France. The old days � the 1990s � when the EU could levy sanctions on China and enforce a change in behavior are gone. The last vestige of this era is the arms embargo. A new era has begun in which China can levy smart sanctions on European countries.
Resisting the bilateral inclination is difficult. Bilateral visits like David Cameron�s recent tour to China and the Chinese president�s visit to Paris are locked in the logic of bilateral trade promotion. But seeing links to China mainly as a bilateral issue rather than a European-wide concern means accepting a weak position vis-a-vis Beijing. China deals with Europe as it is, not how we dream it is. When European states pursue their own agendas, China will get free traders in the Northern countries to block moves that it sees as too strong, while ensuring that indifferent Southerners dilute policies on human rights.
A purely bilateral vocabulary seems increasingly anachronistic when an Airbus is assembled with subcomponents from all over Europe. Member countries must acknowledge that signing up to the EU is a binding commitment. A high-level EU official conceded that the just adopted internal strategy paper was kept relatively bland because of suspicion that it would be leaked to China. As a result, it couldn�t contain a more detailed game plan for how to secure EU interests through trade-offs and linkages.
The EU�s bilateral instinct can be overcome. The internal pressure for multilateral compliance should be stronger once the External Action Service is up and running. But the EAS is no deus ex machina. Member states must be continuously engaged to pursue reciprocal engagement with China. The European Parliament, with its new say over foreign policy, could play an important role by naming and shaming member states that subvert the EU�s strategic priorities in exchange for bilateral advantages.
A joined-up China policy is urgently needed. Events tend to overtake the EU while it ponders policy and its strategic approach. This year, it was Chinese investments in Europe, particularly in government bonds from Greece to Spain. China�s investment in Europe is a natural diversification from a dollar verdose. Chinese investment should be welcome, but the EU should be an intermediary so that this process is not framed as a bilateral favor that creates political dependency between China and member states. Eurobonds, which have been widely discussed as a solution in the euro crisis, could be a useful tool in this.
For EU foreign policy �czar� Catherine Ashton and her team, fleshing out the elements of a common EU China policy and being able to apply it in time means anticipating events and providing guidance for how individual actions and bilateral visits play to (or undermine) Europe�s strength. For example, the EU needs a code of conduct for dealing with Liu Xiaobo after the Nobel debacle. Such a code of conduct could be minimal. The important point is that it is adhered to.
Member states must make strategic choices that do not favor short-term national rewards at the expense of Europe�s strength. The member-states need to move China up the policy agenda and act in unison if they want to reap the benefits of stronger ties to China and avoid being divided and ultimately ruled.
gapala
06-23 10:28 PM
Lot of folks talk about tax credit of 8000 in several threads, But, understand that a lot of us in this forum may not even get a dime in credit. There are income limits. Married and income above 170000 will get nothing.. nada. If the income is 165000, you will receive a mere 2000 and so on. Married with less than 150000 will receive 8000. For a single, the limit is 75K.
If both husband and wife works in tech sector.. income will easily cross the limits and you will be considered too rich to buy a home and get credit... May be car credit might work for us as limits are higher... it only applies to sales tax charged on the first $49,500 of your purchase The income limit is high enough that nearly everyone will qualify. The credit starts to phase out at $125,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Once you reach $135,000 and $260,000, respectively, you no longer qualify for car credit.
If both husband and wife works in tech sector.. income will easily cross the limits and you will be considered too rich to buy a home and get credit... May be car credit might work for us as limits are higher... it only applies to sales tax charged on the first $49,500 of your purchase The income limit is high enough that nearly everyone will qualify. The credit starts to phase out at $125,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Once you reach $135,000 and $260,000, respectively, you no longer qualify for car credit.
walking_dude
09-29 02:36 PM
Full disclousre - I consider myself a fiscal conservative. But after watching the debate I believe Obama is a better candidate for Presidency than John McCain and here's why -
1) There is a third dimension to the economic debate besides tax cuts and tax raises - National Debt - which has run into uncountable trillions of Dollars. Obama gets it. McCain doesn't.
2) Both candidates want to cut Defense expenditure. McCain thinks making Defense contracts fixed cost will cut expenditure substantially. How does he plan to do that without affecting quality? Are we to see more of the guns that don't fire in Iraq? Obama has a better solution - end the Iraq War in a timely fashion and save trillions of dollars spent every month.
3) McCain wishes to continue the practice of cutting billions of dollars check anually to Pakistan, most of which goes to buy ammunition from US weapons manufacturers. In other words, a subsidy/corporate welfare in the name of 'War on Terror'. Obama plans to hold them accountable for the money they receive and wishes to see the money go to rooting out Al-queda rather than weapons that threaten India into an arms race. Obama plans to hunt down and eliminate Al-queda in Afghanistan. McCain has no such immediate plans! He wishes to fight the war in Iraq for 4-8 more years and pass on the responsibility to his successor.
4) McCains solution to energy crisis is to destroy the North Pole and burden thousands of generations to come with nuclear waste which will literally take a millenia to clean-up. Obama has placed is bet on replenishable ,greener and less expensive alternatives.
5) Both candidates plans require 'Borrow and Spend' in the short term due to proposed tax cuts. I would rather have Obama spend it on Energy Research than let McCain blow it up in I-rack. At least with Obama plan, America has a chance that reduced dependency on foreign oil may let US government divert the money currently spent on Foreign Oil in paying off debt, rather than pass it on to the future generation.
6) Obama has proposed a medical insurance to help veterans. McCains answer -' I know veterans. I will take care of them'. What kind of answer is that?
7) Obama's stated position is that American companies can bring in more skilled foreign workers as long as there is a need. We are of course concerned about his buddy Sen. Durbin's views which are diametrically opposite of Obama's stated position. On the other hand, McCain doesn't consider EB immigration to be important enough to have a position. In John McCains world - we simply don't exist!
I think it's a good effort by Chandu to educate EB immigrants on the political realities so that we get ready in the days to come to face any eventuality. Also it will aid those of us who get Green Cards in the mean time to make wise decisions while contributing to future election campaigns.
1) There is a third dimension to the economic debate besides tax cuts and tax raises - National Debt - which has run into uncountable trillions of Dollars. Obama gets it. McCain doesn't.
2) Both candidates want to cut Defense expenditure. McCain thinks making Defense contracts fixed cost will cut expenditure substantially. How does he plan to do that without affecting quality? Are we to see more of the guns that don't fire in Iraq? Obama has a better solution - end the Iraq War in a timely fashion and save trillions of dollars spent every month.
3) McCain wishes to continue the practice of cutting billions of dollars check anually to Pakistan, most of which goes to buy ammunition from US weapons manufacturers. In other words, a subsidy/corporate welfare in the name of 'War on Terror'. Obama plans to hold them accountable for the money they receive and wishes to see the money go to rooting out Al-queda rather than weapons that threaten India into an arms race. Obama plans to hunt down and eliminate Al-queda in Afghanistan. McCain has no such immediate plans! He wishes to fight the war in Iraq for 4-8 more years and pass on the responsibility to his successor.
4) McCains solution to energy crisis is to destroy the North Pole and burden thousands of generations to come with nuclear waste which will literally take a millenia to clean-up. Obama has placed is bet on replenishable ,greener and less expensive alternatives.
5) Both candidates plans require 'Borrow and Spend' in the short term due to proposed tax cuts. I would rather have Obama spend it on Energy Research than let McCain blow it up in I-rack. At least with Obama plan, America has a chance that reduced dependency on foreign oil may let US government divert the money currently spent on Foreign Oil in paying off debt, rather than pass it on to the future generation.
6) Obama has proposed a medical insurance to help veterans. McCains answer -' I know veterans. I will take care of them'. What kind of answer is that?
7) Obama's stated position is that American companies can bring in more skilled foreign workers as long as there is a need. We are of course concerned about his buddy Sen. Durbin's views which are diametrically opposite of Obama's stated position. On the other hand, McCain doesn't consider EB immigration to be important enough to have a position. In John McCains world - we simply don't exist!
I think it's a good effort by Chandu to educate EB immigrants on the political realities so that we get ready in the days to come to face any eventuality. Also it will aid those of us who get Green Cards in the mean time to make wise decisions while contributing to future election campaigns.
