Ahimsa
11-13 06:37 PM
Just watched Lou Dobbs tonight.
Lou tried his usual tactic of calling politicians "powerful".
He said "Next guest is the most powerful chairman, likely chairman, of the ways and means committee in the senate, Charlie Rangel".
Charlie rebutted immediately "I don't know what you mean by that. You can call powerful or whatever, but what we think will matter is how to get things done by working together..."
Lou will never change his course...
Lou tried his usual tactic of calling politicians "powerful".
He said "Next guest is the most powerful chairman, likely chairman, of the ways and means committee in the senate, Charlie Rangel".
Charlie rebutted immediately "I don't know what you mean by that. You can call powerful or whatever, but what we think will matter is how to get things done by working together..."
Lou will never change his course...
wallpaper This wallpaper brings many fun
alisa
04-07 01:23 PM
Can there be a differentiation between extensions/renewals/company changes and new H1bs?
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
You hit the nail in the head.
Instead of getting rid of all H1B employees in one full swoop, this lobby wants to put law in place where new H1s will be mostly rejected due the "Consulting clause" and existing H1 employees will be hit in the head with a 2 X 4 when renewing H1, since the scrutiny and paperwork is the same for new H1, H1 extensions and H1 transfers. Same LCA filing, same I-129 forms.
So instead of immediate purge, this is like getting rid of 5 to 10 thousand each month by making extensions and renewals and transfer impossible for those doing the consulting.
Like the admin said, this is the slow bleed of H1B program where death is slow but not obvious and easily detectable.
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
You hit the nail in the head.
Instead of getting rid of all H1B employees in one full swoop, this lobby wants to put law in place where new H1s will be mostly rejected due the "Consulting clause" and existing H1 employees will be hit in the head with a 2 X 4 when renewing H1, since the scrutiny and paperwork is the same for new H1, H1 extensions and H1 transfers. Same LCA filing, same I-129 forms.
So instead of immediate purge, this is like getting rid of 5 to 10 thousand each month by making extensions and renewals and transfer impossible for those doing the consulting.
Like the admin said, this is the slow bleed of H1B program where death is slow but not obvious and easily detectable.
.jpg "wallpaper wallpaper summer.")
nojoke
01-04 05:06 AM
OK.
But I still can't figure out what your argument really is.
Lets agree to disagree, I suppose. Let me know, if you can, what exactly and specifically it is that you didn't like about what I said.
Let me try. I still have one day more before I start working again.
We said 'can you hand over Dawood him'. You said he is past. How is being past meant that his crimes go unpunished? You then say no extradition treaty. So if we give proof for the Bombay incident, how are you going to take action, if you have not done yet for the past incidents. I just don't get it.
We want see if we can trust you. You don't won up, yet you won't punish and infact you seem to protect these guys.
But I still can't figure out what your argument really is.
Lets agree to disagree, I suppose. Let me know, if you can, what exactly and specifically it is that you didn't like about what I said.
Let me try. I still have one day more before I start working again.
We said 'can you hand over Dawood him'. You said he is past. How is being past meant that his crimes go unpunished? You then say no extradition treaty. So if we give proof for the Bombay incident, how are you going to take action, if you have not done yet for the past incidents. I just don't get it.
We want see if we can trust you. You don't won up, yet you won't punish and infact you seem to protect these guys.
2011 Summer Night Wallpaper
xyzgc
12-17 04:33 PM
I'm going to give green to all the good folks on IV.
more...
eb2_hope
08-26 10:01 PM
Couldn't resist writing this one...for all of us with older priority date
Jaane woh kaise log the jinke
485 ko approval mila
hamne to jab bhi call kiya
humko RD/ND/PD ka jaal mila
Still praying ..
PD Dec 2004
& then on a lighter note...mera number kab aayega
Hamko bhi to lift kara de ..thodi si to lift kara de..
kase kason ko diya hai..jaise taise ko diya hai
Hamko bhi to lift kara de ..thodi si to lift kara de..
Jaane woh kaise log the jinke
485 ko approval mila
hamne to jab bhi call kiya
humko RD/ND/PD ka jaal mila
Still praying ..
PD Dec 2004
& then on a lighter note...mera number kab aayega
Hamko bhi to lift kara de ..thodi si to lift kara de..
kase kason ko diya hai..jaise taise ko diya hai
Hamko bhi to lift kara de ..thodi si to lift kara de..
gimme_GC2006
03-23 11:48 PM
Whoa... This is nasty. Asking for documents is one thing, but this is downright scary. The more the documents they ask for more are the chances they can find something wrong.
Hire a good attorney and respond thru Attorney. Good luck with everything and keep us updated. I am really interested in the outcome. Hopefully they will give you what you want.
yea..it looks scary..
hey but I have decided not hire an attorney..just dont want to waste another grand on GC anymore.
I will send whatever I can just tell them that I dont have contracts with client 'coz I am not expected to have them since its between employer and client.
And will see how it goes..hopefully officer will understand it.
But thanks to all of you..I will post here if anything useful happens or this might just end up as we need your latest finger prints. :cool:
Hire a good attorney and respond thru Attorney. Good luck with everything and keep us updated. I am really interested in the outcome. Hopefully they will give you what you want.
yea..it looks scary..
hey but I have decided not hire an attorney..just dont want to waste another grand on GC anymore.
I will send whatever I can just tell them that I dont have contracts with client 'coz I am not expected to have them since its between employer and client.
And will see how it goes..hopefully officer will understand it.
But thanks to all of you..I will post here if anything useful happens or this might just end up as we need your latest finger prints. :cool:
more...
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.
2010 wallpaper wallpaper summer.
xyzgc
12-25 04:30 PM
We suffer due to the unfairness of a system that hinges upon the place of your birth! We demand that there be no quotas based on "country of birth" and that we ask for equitable treatment.
Singling someone out due to his/her "national origin" should be something we backlogged EB2/3 I folks should understand more than others. And yet if someone from Pakistan gets a green card - we gang up on him and are outraged that someone from a terrorist country got it before us!!!! Does that mean we would be ok as long as he got it after us?
I apologize for singling out Talash. I just got frustrated with the fact that you can come from a small, war-mongering terrorist country and get your gc in a year's time, gloat over it, while our tax money of several years finds its way intothe coffers of the very same nation and we wait patiently for several years to see the green.
It was misdirected anger and I stand corrected for singling out some one like this but it doesn't make my point completely invalid either.
I got plenty of red dots after my mere mention of the stupidity of ganging up on the fella... red dots are ok... it was the messages that came along with that were offensive - traitor , paki pork, etc - I just deleted my posts after that and stopped commenting on that particular thread.
I never hurled insults at others and never intended to - you should see the offline messages people left me and you will be equally surprised educated people can use such a horrible language! I'm quite sure several others didn't do that as well. Most folks have been logical and consistent in their posts.
I gave reds because I got reds - I didn't insult anyone at all. And I'm sure there are many others like me, who didn't participate in this dirty name calling but posted their views openly.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the history of India and Pakistan, nothing woring in discussing organized vs. unorganized religion, nothing wrong with pointing out the the flaws in Islam or any other religion - The problem is that such discussions always end up with insults hurled at each other. While we may start with the noble intention of having a civil discussion about these issues - every thread like this ends up with offensive remarks that drives people away. The simple question then becomes - is it worth it? Is this the place to do it? Would such a thread be allowed to continue on Ron Gotcher's website? I hope the moderators of this site realize that inaction on their part seems like they condone this type of behavior.
Why are you "singling" out this particular thread?
Haven't you seen enough bickering, shouting, name calling on other threads, which are supposedly, solely focused on addressing immigration issues.
How many threads have you seen not ending up in flaming at each others? Nearly, in every thread that is related to immigration, people jump at each others throats. Otherwise, there are threads which post useless visa bulletin predictions (I've done it myself).
And what have you done to stop it, may I ask?:(
All the red dots coming my way are more than welcome... just a small request about the insults .... please be brave enough to post them publicy!
So let us now go back to solving all the controversial theological, anthropological and geopolitical issues. Let us continue to demand for fairness and an immigration system blind to our country of birth - but make sure we point out other people's national origin... no wonder the most anti-immigration people are generally the most recent immigrants.
Agreed.
Singling someone out due to his/her "national origin" should be something we backlogged EB2/3 I folks should understand more than others. And yet if someone from Pakistan gets a green card - we gang up on him and are outraged that someone from a terrorist country got it before us!!!! Does that mean we would be ok as long as he got it after us?
I apologize for singling out Talash. I just got frustrated with the fact that you can come from a small, war-mongering terrorist country and get your gc in a year's time, gloat over it, while our tax money of several years finds its way intothe coffers of the very same nation and we wait patiently for several years to see the green.
It was misdirected anger and I stand corrected for singling out some one like this but it doesn't make my point completely invalid either.
I got plenty of red dots after my mere mention of the stupidity of ganging up on the fella... red dots are ok... it was the messages that came along with that were offensive - traitor , paki pork, etc - I just deleted my posts after that and stopped commenting on that particular thread.
I never hurled insults at others and never intended to - you should see the offline messages people left me and you will be equally surprised educated people can use such a horrible language! I'm quite sure several others didn't do that as well. Most folks have been logical and consistent in their posts.
I gave reds because I got reds - I didn't insult anyone at all. And I'm sure there are many others like me, who didn't participate in this dirty name calling but posted their views openly.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the history of India and Pakistan, nothing woring in discussing organized vs. unorganized religion, nothing wrong with pointing out the the flaws in Islam or any other religion - The problem is that such discussions always end up with insults hurled at each other. While we may start with the noble intention of having a civil discussion about these issues - every thread like this ends up with offensive remarks that drives people away. The simple question then becomes - is it worth it? Is this the place to do it? Would such a thread be allowed to continue on Ron Gotcher's website? I hope the moderators of this site realize that inaction on their part seems like they condone this type of behavior.
Why are you "singling" out this particular thread?
Haven't you seen enough bickering, shouting, name calling on other threads, which are supposedly, solely focused on addressing immigration issues.
How many threads have you seen not ending up in flaming at each others? Nearly, in every thread that is related to immigration, people jump at each others throats. Otherwise, there are threads which post useless visa bulletin predictions (I've done it myself).
And what have you done to stop it, may I ask?:(
All the red dots coming my way are more than welcome... just a small request about the insults .... please be brave enough to post them publicy!
So let us now go back to solving all the controversial theological, anthropological and geopolitical issues. Let us continue to demand for fairness and an immigration system blind to our country of birth - but make sure we point out other people's national origin... no wonder the most anti-immigration people are generally the most recent immigrants.
Agreed.
more...
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
hair Summer Night Wallpaper
whattodo
07-11 11:49 AM
My wife (secondary applicant on I-485) started job 1.5 months after her H4 to H1 approval. She needed to wait for SSN and that took 1.5 months. Will that create any issue? I am planning to use AC21 to change job. Will that result in extra scrutiny?
more...
ArkBird
01-06 07:00 PM
The palestine problem was created by British people without considering Palestian's approval for the same. What palestinians are asking is their legitimate right. So Hamas is not the first party to blame for palestinian's problem. But Britain is the first person.
You can blame Hamas for wrong approach to the problem which aggravated the problem in such a way that it can not be solved. Also due to Hamas, Palestinians are suffering like anything. God bless all innocent people who suffers.
But why just Israel? Jordan and Egypt also got the slice of the pie. Why not fire rocket at them? Blame Israel just because it's the only non-muslim country in the region so they should pay?
Secondly, Hamas is this powerful today just because people of Palestian allowed them, supported them, elected them now why shy from facing the fallout?
It's sad and unfortunate that people are dying but they are dying because of their bad choices not Israel's so called "aggression".
You can blame Hamas for wrong approach to the problem which aggravated the problem in such a way that it can not be solved. Also due to Hamas, Palestinians are suffering like anything. God bless all innocent people who suffers.
But why just Israel? Jordan and Egypt also got the slice of the pie. Why not fire rocket at them? Blame Israel just because it's the only non-muslim country in the region so they should pay?
Secondly, Hamas is this powerful today just because people of Palestian allowed them, supported them, elected them now why shy from facing the fallout?
It's sad and unfortunate that people are dying but they are dying because of their bad choices not Israel's so called "aggression".
hot Summer Nights Wallpaper
Macaca
12-29 07:13 PM
Rights activist's life term sparks protests across India (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/28/AR2010122802579.html) By Emily Wax | Washington Post
Street protests spread across India this week after a court handed down a life sentence to a prominent activist and physician who has long drawn attention to the country's growing economic inequalities.
In a case that has prompted denunciations by international human rights groups and scholars, prosecutors said Binayak Sen, 60, had aided Maoist rebels in rural India, visiting Maoist leaders in jail and opening a bank account for a Maoist, charges that Sen denies. Human rights activists allege that police planted evidence and manufactured testimonies, and Indian judges have criticized the Dec. 24 judgment.
Soli Sorabjee, a former attorney general, called the ruling "shocking."
"Binayak Sen has a fine record," he said. "The evidence against him seems flimsy. The judge has misapplied the section. And in any case, the sentence is atrocious, savage."
Sen, a pediatrician, has worked for decades to help people displaced by violence and government land seizures in India's mineral-rich regions. Despite the country's booming economy, hundreds of millions of Indians remain mired in poverty - a stubborn inequality that has helped fuel a deadly Maoist insurgency in as many as 20 of India's 28 states.
The ragtag Maoist rebels, called Naxalites after Naxalbari, a village in West Bengal state where the movement was born in 1967, seek to gain power through armed struggle. They claim to fight for the poor and India's marginalized tribal groups but have also been accused of widespread atrocities. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called the Naxal movement the "biggest single threat to India's internal security."
Sen, who was arrested in 2007 and was not granted bail for two years, says he was targeted solely because he was a vocal critic of the government's use of armed groups to push villagers out of mineral-rich forest areas. His sentencing comes as major economies, including the United States and China, are seeking access to India's growing markets - a sign of the country's emergence as an economic superpower.
"Anyone in India who dissents or questions the superpower script is ostracized," said Kavita Srivastava, national secretary of the People's Union for Civil Liberties, of which Sen is a vice president. "Sen's arrest is happening because this government is extremely anti-poor. Our much-praised 9 percent growth is coming at the cost of displacing millions of people with land that is being given away for mining and corporate development."
Sen's difficulties with Indian authorities have drawn global attention before. In 2008, an effort led by 22 Nobel laureates failed to secure Sen's release on bail so he could travel to Washington to receive the prestigious Jonathan Mann Award for his efforts to reduce the infant mortality rate and deaths from diarrhea.
This time, protests erupted after a court in the eastern state of Chhattisgarh convicted Sen on two counts of sedition and conspiracy, sentencing him to life imprisonment. He was found not guilty of a third charge of waging war against the state, a crime punishable by death.
A growing number of Indian intellectuals and human rights activists have spoken out on his behalf this week.
"Binayak Sen has never fired a gun. He probably does not know how to hold one," historian Ramachandra Guha wrote in the Hindustan Times. "He has explicitly condemned Maoist violence, and even said of the armed revolutionaries that theirs is an invalid and unsustainable movement. His conviction will and should be challenged."
Sen's wife, also a doctor, said in an interview that she is launching an international campaign to do just that.
"He is a person who has worked for the poor of the country for 30 years," Ilina Sen said. "If that person is found guilty of sedition activities when gangsters and scamsters are walking free, well, that's a disgrace to our democracy."
Nobel Laureates Unable to Win Release of Doctor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903578.html?sid=ST2010122803216) By Nora Boustany | Washington Post
Street protests spread across India this week after a court handed down a life sentence to a prominent activist and physician who has long drawn attention to the country's growing economic inequalities.
In a case that has prompted denunciations by international human rights groups and scholars, prosecutors said Binayak Sen, 60, had aided Maoist rebels in rural India, visiting Maoist leaders in jail and opening a bank account for a Maoist, charges that Sen denies. Human rights activists allege that police planted evidence and manufactured testimonies, and Indian judges have criticized the Dec. 24 judgment.
Soli Sorabjee, a former attorney general, called the ruling "shocking."
"Binayak Sen has a fine record," he said. "The evidence against him seems flimsy. The judge has misapplied the section. And in any case, the sentence is atrocious, savage."
Sen, a pediatrician, has worked for decades to help people displaced by violence and government land seizures in India's mineral-rich regions. Despite the country's booming economy, hundreds of millions of Indians remain mired in poverty - a stubborn inequality that has helped fuel a deadly Maoist insurgency in as many as 20 of India's 28 states.
The ragtag Maoist rebels, called Naxalites after Naxalbari, a village in West Bengal state where the movement was born in 1967, seek to gain power through armed struggle. They claim to fight for the poor and India's marginalized tribal groups but have also been accused of widespread atrocities. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called the Naxal movement the "biggest single threat to India's internal security."
Sen, who was arrested in 2007 and was not granted bail for two years, says he was targeted solely because he was a vocal critic of the government's use of armed groups to push villagers out of mineral-rich forest areas. His sentencing comes as major economies, including the United States and China, are seeking access to India's growing markets - a sign of the country's emergence as an economic superpower.
"Anyone in India who dissents or questions the superpower script is ostracized," said Kavita Srivastava, national secretary of the People's Union for Civil Liberties, of which Sen is a vice president. "Sen's arrest is happening because this government is extremely anti-poor. Our much-praised 9 percent growth is coming at the cost of displacing millions of people with land that is being given away for mining and corporate development."
Sen's difficulties with Indian authorities have drawn global attention before. In 2008, an effort led by 22 Nobel laureates failed to secure Sen's release on bail so he could travel to Washington to receive the prestigious Jonathan Mann Award for his efforts to reduce the infant mortality rate and deaths from diarrhea.
This time, protests erupted after a court in the eastern state of Chhattisgarh convicted Sen on two counts of sedition and conspiracy, sentencing him to life imprisonment. He was found not guilty of a third charge of waging war against the state, a crime punishable by death.
A growing number of Indian intellectuals and human rights activists have spoken out on his behalf this week.
"Binayak Sen has never fired a gun. He probably does not know how to hold one," historian Ramachandra Guha wrote in the Hindustan Times. "He has explicitly condemned Maoist violence, and even said of the armed revolutionaries that theirs is an invalid and unsustainable movement. His conviction will and should be challenged."
Sen's wife, also a doctor, said in an interview that she is launching an international campaign to do just that.
"He is a person who has worked for the poor of the country for 30 years," Ilina Sen said. "If that person is found guilty of sedition activities when gangsters and scamsters are walking free, well, that's a disgrace to our democracy."
Nobel Laureates Unable to Win Release of Doctor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903578.html?sid=ST2010122803216) By Nora Boustany | Washington Post
more...
house house NIGHT SUMMER WALLPAPER
2008FebEb2
08-05 01:35 PM
I a EB2-I with PD 2008 Feb.
I think everybody has the right to port to a different category if they qualify for it.
I feel for Eb3 guys who have been waiting in the queue for ever now.
The Original thread starter is a sh*t stirrer who knows nothing. :mad:
Good luck to everyone. :p
I think everybody has the right to port to a different category if they qualify for it.
I feel for Eb3 guys who have been waiting in the queue for ever now.
The Original thread starter is a sh*t stirrer who knows nothing. :mad:
Good luck to everyone. :p
tattoo New York Summer Night
alterego
07-14 05:19 PM
I think we all agreed that the letter contents were somewhat pre-baked. The letter campaign was a idea in the right direction.
And mind you, we are now very active not because EB2 is moving, but because we now have concrete proof that the system was changed this year. I had my doubts, and had been asking about it for a while now, but all of the people said, "no you are wrong, the spill-over is working as it should, and as it always has". We have just recently realized that we were being misled, and there indeed has been a change. That is the reason we are being active.
Yes, you agreed that the immigration system needs to be overhauled, but the only relief in sight is for EB2 folks.. There is no legislation that will help EB3 backlogs. Recapture will again help Eb2 folks, and given the new "pecking order" that has been wrongly put by USICS, Eb3 will never truly benefit from any of these bills.
IV has its goals, as any organization should, and we fully realize that it can't keep everyone happy. However, some of you are stopping voices of others from being heard -- which is fine too. IV is a private organization that can choose to censor or restrict some kind of activities. But when you do that, you can't hope that everyone will support the organization, and believe everything that is being told to them.
What you have said is completely incorrect. EB3I stands to benefit the most from visa recapture legislation. The last time visas were recaptured was in 2000 through the AC21 legislation and as a result of the 230K or so visas that were added to the pool, the USCIS was able to keep PDs for all EB categories, EB1/2/3, EBI/C/ROW, everything current for nearly 4 yrs until 2005 when those extra numbers ran out and retrogression hit. I should know, I could have filed since 2002 but delayed because my less than knowlegable lawyer advised me when you file does not matter. I did not know didly about PD in those days.
Anyway, when you say visa recapture does not hep EB3I, that is patently FALSE. En Contraire, it is the ONLY thing that can help that category.
And mind you, we are now very active not because EB2 is moving, but because we now have concrete proof that the system was changed this year. I had my doubts, and had been asking about it for a while now, but all of the people said, "no you are wrong, the spill-over is working as it should, and as it always has". We have just recently realized that we were being misled, and there indeed has been a change. That is the reason we are being active.
Yes, you agreed that the immigration system needs to be overhauled, but the only relief in sight is for EB2 folks.. There is no legislation that will help EB3 backlogs. Recapture will again help Eb2 folks, and given the new "pecking order" that has been wrongly put by USICS, Eb3 will never truly benefit from any of these bills.
IV has its goals, as any organization should, and we fully realize that it can't keep everyone happy. However, some of you are stopping voices of others from being heard -- which is fine too. IV is a private organization that can choose to censor or restrict some kind of activities. But when you do that, you can't hope that everyone will support the organization, and believe everything that is being told to them.
What you have said is completely incorrect. EB3I stands to benefit the most from visa recapture legislation. The last time visas were recaptured was in 2000 through the AC21 legislation and as a result of the 230K or so visas that were added to the pool, the USCIS was able to keep PDs for all EB categories, EB1/2/3, EBI/C/ROW, everything current for nearly 4 yrs until 2005 when those extra numbers ran out and retrogression hit. I should know, I could have filed since 2002 but delayed because my less than knowlegable lawyer advised me when you file does not matter. I did not know didly about PD in those days.
Anyway, when you say visa recapture does not hep EB3I, that is patently FALSE. En Contraire, it is the ONLY thing that can help that category.
more...
pictures Summer Nights HD Wallpaper
cagedcactus
04-07 05:43 PM
I wonder if big names like Mircrosoft and others are aware of this. I am sure they will have a huge loss if this bill went through. May be it is time Bill Gates dropped his gloves and fight for us too.
dresses summer nights and mornings
xyzgc
12-26 04:21 PM
Look at stratfor.com
Let us prove India is not a land of cowards, let us show that we are strong and we don't allow terrorists to attack our cities and our senate with impunity.
Remember, even your favorite Obama would not have hesitated to attack Afghanistan and Iraq post 9-11. He maintains he was opposed to the war on Iraq, but he has never said anything about Afghanistan. In fact, nobody did.
Most americans have supported the attack on Afghanistan, where Osama is believed to hiding along with other terrorists. Most americans oppose war on Iraq, because over 10k american soldiers have died, Isince the Iraq war began and the economy is in shambles and Iraqis are a drain on the failing economy.
In Obama's reminders that he opposed the Iraq war in 2002, he contrasts his record with that of Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war.
Yet a comparison of all 85 votes the Senate has held on Iraq since Obama entered the chamber shows he and Clinton differed only once -- when Obama voted to support the nomination of Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq for nearly three years, to become the Army chief of staff.
Let us prove India is not a land of cowards, let us show that we are strong and we don't allow terrorists to attack our cities and our senate with impunity.
Remember, even your favorite Obama would not have hesitated to attack Afghanistan and Iraq post 9-11. He maintains he was opposed to the war on Iraq, but he has never said anything about Afghanistan. In fact, nobody did.
Most americans have supported the attack on Afghanistan, where Osama is believed to hiding along with other terrorists. Most americans oppose war on Iraq, because over 10k american soldiers have died, Isince the Iraq war began and the economy is in shambles and Iraqis are a drain on the failing economy.
In Obama's reminders that he opposed the Iraq war in 2002, he contrasts his record with that of Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war.
Yet a comparison of all 85 votes the Senate has held on Iraq since Obama entered the chamber shows he and Clinton differed only once -- when Obama voted to support the nomination of Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq for nearly three years, to become the Army chief of staff.
more...
makeup mexico beaches wallpaper.
Macaca
05-02 05:38 PM
Don't kowtow to China now (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dont-kowtow-to-china-now/story-fn59niix-1226047967727) By Paul Dibb | The Australian
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
girlfriend and very hot summer night
DSJ
05-15 08:37 PM
If consultant companies are not suppose to body shop most of us will be jobless. Please look back how you came to this country in the past.
Body shopping in not a new concept for H1-B, don't know why they are concered now.
I do grasp the concept of consultancy, thanks. You know as well as I that we are not dealing with a 'narrow group' of people misusing the current H-1B system to enter the United States as 'consultants'. The concept of consultancy businesses is great. Most of the consultant companies in the U.S. in general are well respected companies. They can even be great companies when H-1B status employees are involved. That is, WHEN THE H-1B VISA HOLDERS ARE EMPLOYED FULL-TIME, RECEIVING A FULL PAYCHECK FOR A JOB THEY APPLIED FOR WITH THE COMPANY BEFORE FILING THE H-1B APPLICATION. If a consultancy firm is not able to do that, they shouldn't plan on hiring people on H-1Bs. Likewise, people shouldn't (mis-)use H-1Bs as a means of access to the U.S. using body shops, resulting in multiple law violations such as bench time and accepting below average wages.
In your examples you suggest that I say consultancy in general is not a good thing. Of course it is a good thing. But consultants should be EMPLOYED ON A FULL-TIME BASIS TO ADHER WITH H-1B VISA REGULATIONS.
I think the H-1B visa program is a great one! It is simply sad to see it abused to the point it is today. What congress is doing is closing a very exploited loophole. Kudos to congress for seeing the real issue instead of, say, shutting the H-1B program down entirely!
Body shopping in not a new concept for H1-B, don't know why they are concered now.
I do grasp the concept of consultancy, thanks. You know as well as I that we are not dealing with a 'narrow group' of people misusing the current H-1B system to enter the United States as 'consultants'. The concept of consultancy businesses is great. Most of the consultant companies in the U.S. in general are well respected companies. They can even be great companies when H-1B status employees are involved. That is, WHEN THE H-1B VISA HOLDERS ARE EMPLOYED FULL-TIME, RECEIVING A FULL PAYCHECK FOR A JOB THEY APPLIED FOR WITH THE COMPANY BEFORE FILING THE H-1B APPLICATION. If a consultancy firm is not able to do that, they shouldn't plan on hiring people on H-1Bs. Likewise, people shouldn't (mis-)use H-1Bs as a means of access to the U.S. using body shops, resulting in multiple law violations such as bench time and accepting below average wages.
In your examples you suggest that I say consultancy in general is not a good thing. Of course it is a good thing. But consultants should be EMPLOYED ON A FULL-TIME BASIS TO ADHER WITH H-1B VISA REGULATIONS.
I think the H-1B visa program is a great one! It is simply sad to see it abused to the point it is today. What congress is doing is closing a very exploited loophole. Kudos to congress for seeing the real issue instead of, say, shutting the H-1B program down entirely!
hairstyles “Summer Nights”,
alisa
01-01 10:46 AM
Alisa,
Look, the Pakistani military/Govt. is not capable of dealing with these 'non-state' actors. Your logic that it is going to take several years to neutralize and India has to wait for that period to pass is simply dumb.
Do you think Indian strikes on Pakistan, or a war between India and Pakistan, is going to weaken these guys, or strengthen them?
What would be dumb now?
Would you allow a thief to rob your own home over and over again? Depending on your logic, it looks like you wait for several thefts to pass before taking action against the thief.
Suppose there are theives from Bihar that come and rob you in West Bengal.
You can either send your West Bengal police into Bihar, and turn it into a rivalry between two police departments. And a rivalry between two provinces.
Or you have the two police departments work together to reduce crime rate in the future.
Look, the Pakistani military/Govt. is not capable of dealing with these 'non-state' actors. Your logic that it is going to take several years to neutralize and India has to wait for that period to pass is simply dumb.
Do you think Indian strikes on Pakistan, or a war between India and Pakistan, is going to weaken these guys, or strengthen them?
What would be dumb now?
Would you allow a thief to rob your own home over and over again? Depending on your logic, it looks like you wait for several thefts to pass before taking action against the thief.
Suppose there are theives from Bihar that come and rob you in West Bengal.
You can either send your West Bengal police into Bihar, and turn it into a rivalry between two police departments. And a rivalry between two provinces.
Or you have the two police departments work together to reduce crime rate in the future.
abcdgc
12-27 12:27 AM
So what in your opinion is the reason for the state and the government of Pakistan to provoke India, with the risk of starting a war with India that Pakistan cannot win, at a time when the economy is in a very very bad shape and there are multiple insurgencies and regular suicide attacks within Pakistan?
You are from Pakistan, you tell why you are doing this. Why are you asking us to explain your actions?
You are from Pakistan, you tell why you are doing this. Why are you asking us to explain your actions?
texcan
08-05 04:09 PM
ROLLING_FLOOD HAS STARTED THE 'FLOOD' AND HE 'ROLLED' OUT....He is probably laughing his as* off....
Don't worry too much about GC...it would ruin your life if you think a lot about it.
We all (at least most of us) came to this country with 2 big suitcases and a carry-on bag (with lots of pickels and masalas and clothes and many other stuff) and maybe couple of thousand $$.
So, if you look back you all have achieved something more then that for sure...if we don't get GC, then lets pack those 2 suitcases and head home...no big deal !!!! keep a positive attitude and everything would be fine.
just my thoughts :)
good stuff,
thanks
Don't worry too much about GC...it would ruin your life if you think a lot about it.
We all (at least most of us) came to this country with 2 big suitcases and a carry-on bag (with lots of pickels and masalas and clothes and many other stuff) and maybe couple of thousand $$.
So, if you look back you all have achieved something more then that for sure...if we don't get GC, then lets pack those 2 suitcases and head home...no big deal !!!! keep a positive attitude and everything would be fine.
just my thoughts :)
good stuff,
thanks
