paskal
07-14 05:37 PM
Thanks. I will look into it further when I get a chance. the number of GC granted in a year is complicated- and for the moment I speak offhand so correct me if needed. Till 2005, the recapture clouded the numbers. After that EB3 benefited from a Schedule A recapture that went almost entirely to EB3, a lot to EB3 Philipenes and a good chunk to EB3 India.
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
Paskal,
Your post made me look again into the text. Alright, I see some things now, doesnt fully explain the lack of EB3 numbers but let me summarize..
EB2-ROW-> EB2(general-pool). I have always conceded that this should be the case. (for those who disagree, see my initial posts).
My point always has been on the spillover of EB1 numbers, that very clearly is to be shared amongst EB2 and EB3 (and if you apply USCIS "new" yard-stick), this will be first-come-first serve, so pretty much will help the most regressed category. However, it is my contention that in making the change of the Veritcal/Horizontal spillover (is there any "memo" on this?), USCIS went a step further than what they should have done. They denied EB1 spillover to EB3.
For the rest EB3ers, here is the relevant post that supports EB2-ROW to Eb2->general-pool. But it does not say anything about EB1 numbers
"If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limit ....
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
Paskal,
Your post made me look again into the text. Alright, I see some things now, doesnt fully explain the lack of EB3 numbers but let me summarize..
EB2-ROW-> EB2(general-pool). I have always conceded that this should be the case. (for those who disagree, see my initial posts).
My point always has been on the spillover of EB1 numbers, that very clearly is to be shared amongst EB2 and EB3 (and if you apply USCIS "new" yard-stick), this will be first-come-first serve, so pretty much will help the most regressed category. However, it is my contention that in making the change of the Veritcal/Horizontal spillover (is there any "memo" on this?), USCIS went a step further than what they should have done. They denied EB1 spillover to EB3.
For the rest EB3ers, here is the relevant post that supports EB2-ROW to Eb2->general-pool. But it does not say anything about EB1 numbers
"If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limit ....
wallpaper Funny Christmas Illustration
chanduv23
03-25 03:50 PM
ok..lets see how it goes.
I did not hire an attorney nor took a consultation..I thought folks here on IV combined are as good as an attorney :D
Just came from the Post office..sent all documents they asked for including Resume.
I dont know if my employer responded..I called them but they didn't respond..typical..huh
Lets see how it goes..
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), you will see me in
"Alberta Welcomes H1b" thread.. :D:D:D
It is always good to utilize services of a good Attorney for complex situations. But anyways good luck.
I did not hire an attorney nor took a consultation..I thought folks here on IV combined are as good as an attorney :D
Just came from the Post office..sent all documents they asked for including Resume.
I dont know if my employer responded..I called them but they didn't respond..typical..huh
Lets see how it goes..
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), you will see me in
"Alberta Welcomes H1b" thread.. :D:D:D
It is always good to utilize services of a good Attorney for complex situations. But anyways good luck.
pappu
04-07 05:35 AM
Guys,
There is going to be no difference whether you
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
So take this seriously and do not underestimate this.
And if you work perm-fulltime it will indirectly affect you. Projects are not done in isolation. Most projects have a mix of full-time employees and consultants who are sourced from vendors and H1B recruitors. Projects falter and fail when abruptly some consultants go back to their home countries because their H1s couldnt get extended. And that affects everyone. Job security depends on success of IT or other projects and if you are a part of failed project that was lost half way due to lack of skilled employees, then your job security also diminishes. If you are laid off, then the H1 transfer to a new company would be subject to the new rules under this law.
Infact, this affects everyone.
Students looking for new H1B
Students on OPT
H1Bs getting extensions
H4s transferring to H1Bs
and all H1Bs indirectly and directly
Because now ALL employers will be hesitant to hire an H1B in ANY field due to such tough laws and lot of paperwork and lot of restrictions.
There is going to be no difference whether you
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
So take this seriously and do not underestimate this.
And if you work perm-fulltime it will indirectly affect you. Projects are not done in isolation. Most projects have a mix of full-time employees and consultants who are sourced from vendors and H1B recruitors. Projects falter and fail when abruptly some consultants go back to their home countries because their H1s couldnt get extended. And that affects everyone. Job security depends on success of IT or other projects and if you are a part of failed project that was lost half way due to lack of skilled employees, then your job security also diminishes. If you are laid off, then the H1 transfer to a new company would be subject to the new rules under this law.
Infact, this affects everyone.
Students looking for new H1B
Students on OPT
H1Bs getting extensions
H4s transferring to H1Bs
and all H1Bs indirectly and directly
Because now ALL employers will be hesitant to hire an H1B in ANY field due to such tough laws and lot of paperwork and lot of restrictions.
2011 wallpaper funny girls.
lfwf
08-06 03:45 PM
According to you A acquires skills over a period of time and so does a person who went for higher education and is EB2. You also say that if there was no porting, A has a PD of 2002 (in EB3) and B has a PD of 2005 (in EB2), then they are almost in the same position.
At this point both of us agree that A and B are equal, right?
If they both are EQUAL, then can you guarantee that both PDs will move at the same rate?. If A�s PD becomes unavailable and B�s become current. B will get GC faster than A even though both were equal (from your logic). Is this fair, then?
No one can guarantee that. and that is the whole concept of "preference categories" . So now its ok for A to jump to EB2 and leapfrog everyone with his/her 2002 PD? Does 5 years of work have that much value? He/She would be ahead of 2003 EB2 filers that may have been working on degrees since 1999. That's ok by you? The faster movement of EB2 makes up for the years of education. I say, by all means BS+5 shoudl file EB2, I just don't agree with the porting. That PD was for an entirely different skill set and job. I know its the law. I still disagree. Can do that last I knew :-)
At this point both of us agree that A and B are equal, right?
If they both are EQUAL, then can you guarantee that both PDs will move at the same rate?. If A�s PD becomes unavailable and B�s become current. B will get GC faster than A even though both were equal (from your logic). Is this fair, then?
No one can guarantee that. and that is the whole concept of "preference categories" . So now its ok for A to jump to EB2 and leapfrog everyone with his/her 2002 PD? Does 5 years of work have that much value? He/She would be ahead of 2003 EB2 filers that may have been working on degrees since 1999. That's ok by you? The faster movement of EB2 makes up for the years of education. I say, by all means BS+5 shoudl file EB2, I just don't agree with the porting. That PD was for an entirely different skill set and job. I know its the law. I still disagree. Can do that last I knew :-)
more...
gapala
06-05 10:05 PM
Real estate cycles are lenghty ones.. not like stock markets which turn around in 4 to 5 years.. Real estate booms are seen once in every 15 to 18 years... This is because the sum of amount is huge and the stabilization time frame.
Based on current outlook, the prices for houses will fall until end of 2010 and will stabilize in next 5 to rise again by 2015 to 2017. This is purely based on historic pattern.. Now god kows what these crazy folks like Bernankie (15 fold increase in currency base projected in Fed Reserve BS. :D) and Gessner' (foolish tax payer investment in GM though it looks like payback to unions) interfearance will do to this country...
Some people jump guns and create demand for home to get $8000 credit... you can see now the builders are increasing prices for homes in the market... slowly.. but will not sustain into 2010.. it will fall for one important reason, supply is too much.. oh by the way.. 30% of home owners want to sell their homes in this market to avoid further fall... based on recent survey..
Based on current outlook, the prices for houses will fall until end of 2010 and will stabilize in next 5 to rise again by 2015 to 2017. This is purely based on historic pattern.. Now god kows what these crazy folks like Bernankie (15 fold increase in currency base projected in Fed Reserve BS. :D) and Gessner' (foolish tax payer investment in GM though it looks like payback to unions) interfearance will do to this country...
Some people jump guns and create demand for home to get $8000 credit... you can see now the builders are increasing prices for homes in the market... slowly.. but will not sustain into 2010.. it will fall for one important reason, supply is too much.. oh by the way.. 30% of home owners want to sell their homes in this market to avoid further fall... based on recent survey..
SunnySurya
08-05 01:45 PM
Why, what is difference? Why was labor substitution bad. It was perfectly legal after all.
You can't generalize everything. Do you care to show how this is as bad as labor substitution ?
How about comparing the actual job duties of all EB2s and EB3s . Not just what their lawyer says ?
You can't generalize everything. Do you care to show how this is as bad as labor substitution ?
How about comparing the actual job duties of all EB2s and EB3s . Not just what their lawyer says ?
more...
sanju
12-18 05:41 PM
Why is it that there are no true democracies in the middle east? Have you ever thought of that? Do you realize that in a country like Saudi Arabia women are oppressed and they have to follow the dictates of the mullahs!! Every person, irrespective of their personal faith is subject to the Sharia laws!! Is that justice!! Why is it that Muslims don’t see oppression within their own country and try wage a jihad against that? Why is it that Muslims don’t want to spend time and effort cleaning up their own house?
Let me tell why, because it has got to be someone else's fault. Those terrorist who attacked America no 911 had nothing to do with Chechenya or Palestine or Darfur. They were merely blinded by their twisted world view that was based on their twisted belief system. And the applied to the terrorist who attacked Mumbai on 11/26.
Although it is difficult to swallow what these misguided guys did, it is even more difficult to see EDUCATED LITERATE people defend barbaric heinous inhuman actions in the name of religion. I can't even image in the wildest of my dreams anybody's GOD will tell someone to conduct such acts and anybody's GOD will tell that person to defend such acts. This has got be work of an extremely inferior mind which says - lets try to reason out why such attacks are conducted on unarmed civilians including woman and children. Denfending such acts in the name of religion is worst than participating in this crime against humanity.
And if I am incharge and decision maker, if the objective of terrorist is to draw attention to a specifc cause to solve it to their liking, I will make sure that that issue is never EVER addressed. No compromise and no negotitions with terrorists, EVER.
.
Let me tell why, because it has got to be someone else's fault. Those terrorist who attacked America no 911 had nothing to do with Chechenya or Palestine or Darfur. They were merely blinded by their twisted world view that was based on their twisted belief system. And the applied to the terrorist who attacked Mumbai on 11/26.
Although it is difficult to swallow what these misguided guys did, it is even more difficult to see EDUCATED LITERATE people defend barbaric heinous inhuman actions in the name of religion. I can't even image in the wildest of my dreams anybody's GOD will tell someone to conduct such acts and anybody's GOD will tell that person to defend such acts. This has got be work of an extremely inferior mind which says - lets try to reason out why such attacks are conducted on unarmed civilians including woman and children. Denfending such acts in the name of religion is worst than participating in this crime against humanity.
And if I am incharge and decision maker, if the objective of terrorist is to draw attention to a specifc cause to solve it to their liking, I will make sure that that issue is never EVER addressed. No compromise and no negotitions with terrorists, EVER.
.
2010 Funny Baby Girl Wallpaper
EB3_SEP04
01-03 01:36 AM
Guys,
Looks like we may see some action from India within hours now. The war clouds have been gathering ever since the Mumbai attacks. But now the signs of an imminent war are unmistakable.
Apparently India had given pak a deadline of one month to hand over the perpetrators of this attack. The deadline expires on December 26th.
Both India and pak have canceled the leaves of their military personnel.
People in border villages of Rajasthan are evacuating.
CNN has been reporting that paki troops are on the move.
If my hunch in right, something big will happen in next 24 hours.
You there, Beemar? ;)
India is not going to attack in your and my life. India has never invaded any country in it's history, (i don't know if it's peace loving or lack of balls), but several invaded, defeated, ruled and looted India. Just being big (1 billion) does not mean anything, you need the guts to avenge/attack, look at Israel, Vietnam if you need examples. Why can few tigers attack the hurd of dozens of dears/buffalos/cows and make them run ?
India could not even fix LTTE, forget Pak.
Looks like we may see some action from India within hours now. The war clouds have been gathering ever since the Mumbai attacks. But now the signs of an imminent war are unmistakable.
Apparently India had given pak a deadline of one month to hand over the perpetrators of this attack. The deadline expires on December 26th.
Both India and pak have canceled the leaves of their military personnel.
People in border villages of Rajasthan are evacuating.
CNN has been reporting that paki troops are on the move.
If my hunch in right, something big will happen in next 24 hours.
You there, Beemar? ;)
India is not going to attack in your and my life. India has never invaded any country in it's history, (i don't know if it's peace loving or lack of balls), but several invaded, defeated, ruled and looted India. Just being big (1 billion) does not mean anything, you need the guts to avenge/attack, look at Israel, Vietnam if you need examples. Why can few tigers attack the hurd of dozens of dears/buffalos/cows and make them run ?
India could not even fix LTTE, forget Pak.
more...
inskrish
01-07 01:41 AM
Recently during Diwali celebration, one boy fired a rocket and it killed more than six people in Tamil Nadu. Offcourse this rocket was made in Sivakasi and it was an accident. It was a fire cracker. A simple fire cracker can make big accidents like this.
But whole world is crying that Hamas fired 7000 rockets and killed innocent civilians and Isrealis are defending thier nation by killing thousands. What a crap man.
If you are comparing the Sivakasi rocket with the Hamas's rocket, I can only sympathize with you. You certainly need to learn a lot--atleast the definition of 'Rocket' or 'Terrorists'.
But whole world is crying that Hamas fired 7000 rockets and killed innocent civilians and Isrealis are defending thier nation by killing thousands. What a crap man.
If you are comparing the Sivakasi rocket with the Hamas's rocket, I can only sympathize with you. You certainly need to learn a lot--atleast the definition of 'Rocket' or 'Terrorists'.
hair wallpaper funny girls.
axp817
03-26 05:57 PM
Per my understanding, it absolutely is. An LCA amendment has to be filed each time there is a location change outside of commutable distance from the original location for which the H-1B was filed.
Oops, I just saw UN's reply. His answer is more specific than mine, and mine is based on anecdotal evidence so please go with what he says since his is based on personal experience.
UN, Thank you for following up on my question on the Baltimore case.
Oops, I just saw UN's reply. His answer is more specific than mine, and mine is based on anecdotal evidence so please go with what he says since his is based on personal experience.
UN, Thank you for following up on my question on the Baltimore case.
more...
Macaca
10-02 11:02 AM
As China Opens, U.S. Lobbyists Get Ready to Move In (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101672.html?hpid=sec-business) By Ariana Eunjung Cha | Washington Post Foreign Service, October 2, 2007
BEIJING -- It's almost 8 a.m., and former U.S. commerce secretary Donald L. Evans and his team are standing in front of the St. Regis Hotel, preparing for their day of meetings with Chinese finance officials.
Small but meaningful gifts in Tiffany's signature baby-blue boxes? Check. Briefing books with the pronunciation of everyone's names? Check. Black Audi A6s to whisk the group to the meetings? Check.
Evans was in town representing the Financial Services Forum, which is made up of chief executives of 20 multinational banks. His goal was to convince Chinese regulators that opening their financial sector to more foreign investment would be good for China's economy.
Armies of lobbyists are descending on the Chinese capital in anticipation of the 17th Communist Party Congress beginning in mid-October. The gathering will choose a new generation of leaders, setting the political agenda for the next five years.
But the dark-suited Western lobbyists are an odd spectacle given that in China, policy and legislative decisions are still made behind closed doors. Lobbying exists in a gray area; because there are no laws specifically pertaining to it, it isn't even supposed to exist.
Nevertheless, some of Washington's marquee lobbying firms -- including Jones Day, Hogan & Hartson, DLA Piper and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -- have set up offices in China. Officially, they are just investment advisory and communications firms. Chinese companies mostly work through government-affiliated industry associations, although some have also hired Western-style lobbying firms.
In June, foreign companies successfully lobbied Chinese officials to remove conditions on hiring temporary workers in a new labor law that they said would make it prohibitively expensive to do business in China. Likewise in August, they were able persuade China to remove some language in early drafts of the anti-monopoly law that seemed to discriminate against foreign companies, according to Chinese and foreign academics.
The Chinese government has said it took input from domestic and foreign interests into account but has not been specific.
Foreign companies are interested in what happens in China, as its economy is becoming the world's third-largest as well as a capitalist instead of planned one. There's concern that the legal framework for business that China's legislators are writing today could affect the fate of multinational businesses for decades.
Evans said that the degree to which Chinese officials are interested in hearing foreign perspectives on business issues has increased dramatically. In the past, he said, he would go into government meetings and recite a set of bullet points, and the meeting would end. These days, he said, there's real discussion and debate.
"They are very proactive in wanting to engage and share with the business community," Evans said.
Scott Kennedy, director of the Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business at Indiana University and author of "The Business of Lobbying in China," said that as recently as a few years ago foreign companies would grumble that they heard about new policies only after they were announced.
"That is increasingly no longer the case. Today, even if they don't agree with the final result, they know it's on the horizon," Kennedy said.
But China's laws have been slow to respond to the influx of lobbyists seeking to take advantage of the closer ties. Zhao Kejin, an associate professor at Shanghai's Fudan University who studies government-business relations and has written a book on lobbying in China, argues that because lobbyists do not need to register or file disclosure forms, the system is vulnerable to abuse.
"There is lots of lobbying money flowing to individual officials' pockets," Zhao said. In addition to straight-up bribery, some lobbying firms keep friends of high-placed officials on the payroll or pay for officials to take luxury "training" trips abroad.
In 2004, Lucent Technologies fired four executives who were part of its Chinese operations for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign government officials and politicians. Last November, a U.S. software maker, Fidelity National Information Services, was accused of paying for luxury vacations for Chinese banking officials and their families in places such as Rome and Las Vegas. Fidelity has denied the charges.
Lobbying is not only less of an institution in China than it is in the United States, but the people being lobbied are different.
For instance, Murray King, head of the Shanghai office of APCO Worldwide, one of the oldest government relations firms operating in China, said that Chinese academics are among the key players that companies should reach out to. The most important members of that group are those who work with the think tanks affiliated with various state ministries, because they play an important role in the drafting of legislation.
Another crucial part of high-profile lobbying efforts are "guanxi brokers," well-connected individuals who can give introductions to important officials, or "rainmakers," people who are so famous that many Chinese officials might be happy to meet and shake hands.
"Because China is a country that respects authority, former politicians of the United States, when they come to China, can always play a very important role," said Steven Dong, a Tsinghua University public relations professor who studies the reputations of corporations.
A former U.S. official will almost always be greeted by a Chinese official of the same rank, Dong said.
Former officials with star power in China include Henry Kissinger, probably the most sought-after because of the role he played in establishing diplomatic relations with the Communist Party during the Nixon administration. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt, who routinely visits China on behalf of Silicon Valley companies to talk about opening up China's Internet and telecommunications sector, is also a regular in the halls of Chinese ministries. Gary Locke, a former governor of Washington whose consulting firm represents Microsoft and Starbucks, is celebrated for being the first Chinese American governor and is so well known that school girls run up to him to take his picture.
Evans, who was commerce secretary from 2001 to 2004, has been working for the Financial Services Forum since 2005. This was his second trip to China on behalf of the group.
Evans was received by the Chinese government this month with all the pomp and circumstance of a state visit.
His schedule, which included all key financial ministries and regulators, was almost identical to that of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. during his visit in July. Evans even had a private diner with Vice Premier Wu Yi.
There was lobbying on both sides.
Jiang Jianqing, chairman of the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a rank similar to that of minister, pummeled Evans with questions about the subprime lending crisis and trade protectionism in Congress. ICBC has recently been ranked the second- or third-largest bank in the world by market capitalization.
Evans said the Chinese must make sure that U.S. legislators understand they are open to foreign investment. He said it's important for the Chinese to make sure the U.S. government understands "your view as an important trader, to make sure they understand your commitment to moving your economy toward an ultimate market economy."
The total foreign ownership in a Chinese bank cannot exceed 25 percent. But even as Evans began to lay out his case for why China should raise or do away with foreign ownership caps for banking, securities and insurance firms, Jiang took the opportunity to point out his frustration that his bank's application to open a single branch in the United States has not been approved, while U.S. banks, including some that Evans represents, already have significant operations in China.
Evans said he'd be happy to look into the holdup.
Near the end of the one-hour meeting, the two turned to a less-tense topic: the development of China's countryside. Evans talked about his visits to western China, where he met two blind brothers with whom he has kept in touch, and how much their lives had changed over the years. Jiang said he, too, was concerned about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor in China.
The two men smiled and shook hands. That was considered progress.
BEIJING -- It's almost 8 a.m., and former U.S. commerce secretary Donald L. Evans and his team are standing in front of the St. Regis Hotel, preparing for their day of meetings with Chinese finance officials.
Small but meaningful gifts in Tiffany's signature baby-blue boxes? Check. Briefing books with the pronunciation of everyone's names? Check. Black Audi A6s to whisk the group to the meetings? Check.
Evans was in town representing the Financial Services Forum, which is made up of chief executives of 20 multinational banks. His goal was to convince Chinese regulators that opening their financial sector to more foreign investment would be good for China's economy.
Armies of lobbyists are descending on the Chinese capital in anticipation of the 17th Communist Party Congress beginning in mid-October. The gathering will choose a new generation of leaders, setting the political agenda for the next five years.
But the dark-suited Western lobbyists are an odd spectacle given that in China, policy and legislative decisions are still made behind closed doors. Lobbying exists in a gray area; because there are no laws specifically pertaining to it, it isn't even supposed to exist.
Nevertheless, some of Washington's marquee lobbying firms -- including Jones Day, Hogan & Hartson, DLA Piper and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -- have set up offices in China. Officially, they are just investment advisory and communications firms. Chinese companies mostly work through government-affiliated industry associations, although some have also hired Western-style lobbying firms.
In June, foreign companies successfully lobbied Chinese officials to remove conditions on hiring temporary workers in a new labor law that they said would make it prohibitively expensive to do business in China. Likewise in August, they were able persuade China to remove some language in early drafts of the anti-monopoly law that seemed to discriminate against foreign companies, according to Chinese and foreign academics.
The Chinese government has said it took input from domestic and foreign interests into account but has not been specific.
Foreign companies are interested in what happens in China, as its economy is becoming the world's third-largest as well as a capitalist instead of planned one. There's concern that the legal framework for business that China's legislators are writing today could affect the fate of multinational businesses for decades.
Evans said that the degree to which Chinese officials are interested in hearing foreign perspectives on business issues has increased dramatically. In the past, he said, he would go into government meetings and recite a set of bullet points, and the meeting would end. These days, he said, there's real discussion and debate.
"They are very proactive in wanting to engage and share with the business community," Evans said.
Scott Kennedy, director of the Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business at Indiana University and author of "The Business of Lobbying in China," said that as recently as a few years ago foreign companies would grumble that they heard about new policies only after they were announced.
"That is increasingly no longer the case. Today, even if they don't agree with the final result, they know it's on the horizon," Kennedy said.
But China's laws have been slow to respond to the influx of lobbyists seeking to take advantage of the closer ties. Zhao Kejin, an associate professor at Shanghai's Fudan University who studies government-business relations and has written a book on lobbying in China, argues that because lobbyists do not need to register or file disclosure forms, the system is vulnerable to abuse.
"There is lots of lobbying money flowing to individual officials' pockets," Zhao said. In addition to straight-up bribery, some lobbying firms keep friends of high-placed officials on the payroll or pay for officials to take luxury "training" trips abroad.
In 2004, Lucent Technologies fired four executives who were part of its Chinese operations for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign government officials and politicians. Last November, a U.S. software maker, Fidelity National Information Services, was accused of paying for luxury vacations for Chinese banking officials and their families in places such as Rome and Las Vegas. Fidelity has denied the charges.
Lobbying is not only less of an institution in China than it is in the United States, but the people being lobbied are different.
For instance, Murray King, head of the Shanghai office of APCO Worldwide, one of the oldest government relations firms operating in China, said that Chinese academics are among the key players that companies should reach out to. The most important members of that group are those who work with the think tanks affiliated with various state ministries, because they play an important role in the drafting of legislation.
Another crucial part of high-profile lobbying efforts are "guanxi brokers," well-connected individuals who can give introductions to important officials, or "rainmakers," people who are so famous that many Chinese officials might be happy to meet and shake hands.
"Because China is a country that respects authority, former politicians of the United States, when they come to China, can always play a very important role," said Steven Dong, a Tsinghua University public relations professor who studies the reputations of corporations.
A former U.S. official will almost always be greeted by a Chinese official of the same rank, Dong said.
Former officials with star power in China include Henry Kissinger, probably the most sought-after because of the role he played in establishing diplomatic relations with the Communist Party during the Nixon administration. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt, who routinely visits China on behalf of Silicon Valley companies to talk about opening up China's Internet and telecommunications sector, is also a regular in the halls of Chinese ministries. Gary Locke, a former governor of Washington whose consulting firm represents Microsoft and Starbucks, is celebrated for being the first Chinese American governor and is so well known that school girls run up to him to take his picture.
Evans, who was commerce secretary from 2001 to 2004, has been working for the Financial Services Forum since 2005. This was his second trip to China on behalf of the group.
Evans was received by the Chinese government this month with all the pomp and circumstance of a state visit.
His schedule, which included all key financial ministries and regulators, was almost identical to that of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. during his visit in July. Evans even had a private diner with Vice Premier Wu Yi.
There was lobbying on both sides.
Jiang Jianqing, chairman of the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a rank similar to that of minister, pummeled Evans with questions about the subprime lending crisis and trade protectionism in Congress. ICBC has recently been ranked the second- or third-largest bank in the world by market capitalization.
Evans said the Chinese must make sure that U.S. legislators understand they are open to foreign investment. He said it's important for the Chinese to make sure the U.S. government understands "your view as an important trader, to make sure they understand your commitment to moving your economy toward an ultimate market economy."
The total foreign ownership in a Chinese bank cannot exceed 25 percent. But even as Evans began to lay out his case for why China should raise or do away with foreign ownership caps for banking, securities and insurance firms, Jiang took the opportunity to point out his frustration that his bank's application to open a single branch in the United States has not been approved, while U.S. banks, including some that Evans represents, already have significant operations in China.
Evans said he'd be happy to look into the holdup.
Near the end of the one-hour meeting, the two turned to a less-tense topic: the development of China's countryside. Evans talked about his visits to western China, where he met two blind brothers with whom he has kept in touch, and how much their lives had changed over the years. Jiang said he, too, was concerned about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor in China.
The two men smiled and shook hands. That was considered progress.
hot Funny pictures and wallpaper 9
Macaca
12-27 08:16 PM
How Republicans prevailed on the Hill (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/531oekhp.asp) By Whitney Blake | The Weekly Standard, 12/27/2007
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE squeezed through last-minute bills in a marathon session last week akin to the final exams period some members' college-aged children just muddled through. A bleary-eyed, sleep deprived House and Senate finally emerged with the passage of some key pieces of legislation on energy, the Iraq war, the alternative minimum tax, children's health insurance, and a massive omnibus spending bill. In the end, Republicans proved to be the more astute bunch, pushing through Bush's lame duck agenda despite their minority status.
With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."
Leading mainstream publications agreed that Democrats had surrendered to Republican demands, and the left's base was utterly furious at the outcomes. In reaction to the $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan troop funding vote, comments such as, "You are kidding yourself if you think the Democratic party stands for anything--clearly they do not--This is an outrage," were posted on Daily Kos. Huffington Post entries included, "Democrats lose evey [sic] time becuase [sic] they are a pack of spineless cowards".
Even Republicans were surprised with the outcome. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked, "If we had been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me."
"We couldn't have scripted this to work out better for Republicans they conceded almost every issue," said Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Not only did Democrats eventually meet Bush's required $933 billion appropriations spending level, they also capitulated on unconditional funding for the troops, an energy plan without corporate taxes, a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax without additional taxes (a $50 billion violation of Democrats' pay-as-you-go principles), and a straight extension of SCHIP without a large expansion.
At first, the record is baffling, but the explanation for Republican success is simple. Not only was superior "strategery" involved on the part of the minority, to borrow a word from Bush's lexicon, but equally important was Democrats' miscalculations.
Republicans decided early on to stick together on issues such as taxes and Iraq, said one senior Republican aide. Democrats were much more fractured. One Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Democrats accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding. In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats didn't embrace this theme.
They either failed to realize or didn't want to realize that anything they proposed still had to meet approval in the Senate, where compromise and coalition building are unavoidable, with 60 votes required to move any legislation through. "It took some people 11 months to figure this out," said one senior Republican aide.
From the beginning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up a structure that didn't emphasize debate and hearings, said Republican California Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The controversial spots were never worked out in the far-left appeasing bills that passed through the House.
Even after the Senate voted a resounding 88 to 5 in favor of an AMT patch without offsets in the beginning of December, the House passed another version, attached more taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and sent it back to the Senate. The Senate had to vote three times just to show the House Democrats that it did not have the required 60 votes to pass a patch with offsets.
Democrats were not only divided, they also misjudged the public's perception. The "general aversion to tax hikes" worked to the Republicans' advantage, and the overall success of the war in Iraq also played a key factor, said the senior Republican aide.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid commented right before the recess, "I share the frustration of the American people who want to see real change." But Republicans argue Reid's idea of change is not in line with that of most Americans.
They "got the wrong message from the election," which wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government."
They "overreached" after the honeymoon period and "frittered away" high expectations "by taking a sharp turn to the left," he added.
A CNN/USA Today poll taken back in May and June revealed that 57% of Americans favored making permanent the Bush tax cuts, while 37 percent wanted to repeal the temporary cuts. On the broader fiscal topics of taxes, government spending, and regulations for businesses, 41 percent of Americans consider themselves "conservative," 43 percent "moderate," and just 12 percent "liberal," according to a Rasmussen Reports study released about a month ago.
Some Republicans admit Democrats could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. Democrats had a "missed opportunity," said McCarthy, who has experience in a closely divided legislature as a former Republican floor leader in the California State Assembly.
The majority could have still put forth very partisan bills at the outset, but "come back to where common ground was," said McCarthy. Democrats would have "enjoyed much more success" in the center, said Ryan.
Some Republicans were reportedly amenable to partial offsets to the AMT. Perhaps if Democrats had not held onto appropriations spending $23 billion above Bush's request for so long, there would have been more time left to avoid axing the entire difference. Or if taxes were not as high as $22 billion for energy companies in the Democrats' version of the energy bill, some taxes may have been part of the compromise.
But Democrats "were more interested in making a point than making law," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It didn't get them very far: They essentially handed Republicans their agenda on a platter at the eleventh hour to prevent a government shutdown.
In the end, Democrats were "driven by the clock and not by the product of what's created," McCarthy added. Serious negotiations could have occurred much earlier in the year, instead of holding out stubbornly until the end of the session when all eyes were on several major unresolved bills. Sensible bipartisan compromises in piecemeal over the year look much more authoritative, organized, and productive than the harried disarray that unfolded in the past month.
Incidentally, according to McConnell, the only truly bipartisan piece of legislation where genuine compromise was part of the equation was ethics reform, signed into law in September. But even Democrats, who heralded the landmark reforms, took advantages of the loopholes in the bill to insert about 300 air dropped earmarks which had not been taken up by either the House or Senate on the floor or as part of a vote.
Now, with the Democrats' base up in arms, the Democrats' infighting publicly aired, and the minority declaring victory, backed up by the mainstream media no less, the bills don't even appear bipartisan. Democrats came out with the short end of the stick, even though the odds were clearly in their favor after the midterm elections.
While Hillary is busy wrapping up universal health care, and "bring troops home" presents for potential voters, Democrats won't be able to deliver these or any other promised initiatives this Christmas season.
more...
house wallpaper Funny Girl Tattoo
ca_immigrant
06-23 12:38 PM
Here is one calculation that might give you one more reason to buy...
This is taking into consideration bay area good school district ....
say you are currently in a 2 bedroom paying around $1900 rent (say cupertino school district)
you buy a townhome for around $500k putting down 20%
so loan amount is 400k
@ 5% instrest your annual intrest is $ 20k.
Say 3k HOA anually...
Property tax....as a rule of thumb, I believe (and have heard from others) whatever poperty tax you pay comes back as your mortgage intrest and property tax is deductable.
So not taking property tax into account....your annual expense is 23k.
now here is the nice part....
you get 8k (or is it 7.5k ?) from FED for buying a house (first time buyer)
If you get a real estate agent who is ready to give you 50% back on the comission you can get back around 7.5k (assuming the agent gets 3% comission)...I know those kind of agent exist for sure !!
There is something I have heard about CA also giving you 10k for buying new homes...but I am not sure of this so will leave it out of the calculations...
so total amount u get back....8k+ 7.5k = 15k approx..
1st year expense = 23k
1st year actual expense = 23-15 = 8 k
which mean monthly rent = 8k/12 = $666 per month (it is like paying $666 rent for a 2 bedroom in cupertino school district)
Will the property value go up ? I do not know (I wish I knew)...
Is there a risk ? I would think yes....
Percentage of risk ? I would think keeping in mind current prices the risk is low...
I am not telling that you should buy or not buy....just provided one piece of the calculation....-;)
All the best !
This is taking into consideration bay area good school district ....
say you are currently in a 2 bedroom paying around $1900 rent (say cupertino school district)
you buy a townhome for around $500k putting down 20%
so loan amount is 400k
@ 5% instrest your annual intrest is $ 20k.
Say 3k HOA anually...
Property tax....as a rule of thumb, I believe (and have heard from others) whatever poperty tax you pay comes back as your mortgage intrest and property tax is deductable.
So not taking property tax into account....your annual expense is 23k.
now here is the nice part....
you get 8k (or is it 7.5k ?) from FED for buying a house (first time buyer)
If you get a real estate agent who is ready to give you 50% back on the comission you can get back around 7.5k (assuming the agent gets 3% comission)...I know those kind of agent exist for sure !!
There is something I have heard about CA also giving you 10k for buying new homes...but I am not sure of this so will leave it out of the calculations...
so total amount u get back....8k+ 7.5k = 15k approx..
1st year expense = 23k
1st year actual expense = 23-15 = 8 k
which mean monthly rent = 8k/12 = $666 per month (it is like paying $666 rent for a 2 bedroom in cupertino school district)
Will the property value go up ? I do not know (I wish I knew)...
Is there a risk ? I would think yes....
Percentage of risk ? I would think keeping in mind current prices the risk is low...
I am not telling that you should buy or not buy....just provided one piece of the calculation....-;)
All the best !
tattoo hot Beautiful girl wallpapers
new_horizon
09-27 09:26 PM
mc cain will bring the war to an end but it'll be in victory, and making sure there'll be be no need for any future war in the region. but barack's knee-jerk pull back would not only undermine the war, it'll lead to unrest, and potential problem in the future to which the US will be drawn into again. you have seen the same problem india has been facing from the same terrorists...if you just hurt them they'll keep coming back. but if you destroy them forever you can bring peace.
I do agree that the times have been bad in the US economy lately, but don't you realize it's mainly due to the housing market, which has had a cascading effect on the banking sector, etc. (again this crazy financing scheme started in the clinton years where their objective was to give the dream of owning a home to the less fortunate to show that they are for the poor. this led to people getting easy loans to buy bigger home even if they didn't have the ability to pay back. the repubs did not have the courage to stop this lending practice, 'coz if they did the dems would say the repubs are against poor people buying houses. so you see how the dem policies hurt even long after they are gone).
but if you closely look, the US exports have boomed than any other time, and there is a huge chance of recovery if the right policies are applied. It's nice to imagine/hope that things will change overnight under the dems, but if you really look at their policies, they want to impose more taxes on the businesses (and also you), which will impact their bottomline, and will lead to a recruitment freeze, or even moving their business to a different country. and if you think our hard earned tax dollars are spent wastefully now, wait till you see how a dem admin is going to spend our money. they'll lead the country into deeper recession, and we can then kiss goodbye to our gc dreams.
I know the prospect of a charismatic guy in obama getting elected is very enticing, but the prospect of the dems controlling the house, senate, and the presidency will be a disaster never seen before. we'll see them lead US to a more socialistic country. what has made this country great is the prospect of getting limitless reward if you are hardworking, and innovative. but the dems concept is limiting reward to a set level, and distributing wealth to the less fortunate (i.e. lazy people). this was what happened to the socialistic and communist countries (dying economies, and poverty).
but our immediate concern is getting gc, and I really fear the prospect of dems controlling all branches of govt will def kill our dreams.
I do agree that the times have been bad in the US economy lately, but don't you realize it's mainly due to the housing market, which has had a cascading effect on the banking sector, etc. (again this crazy financing scheme started in the clinton years where their objective was to give the dream of owning a home to the less fortunate to show that they are for the poor. this led to people getting easy loans to buy bigger home even if they didn't have the ability to pay back. the repubs did not have the courage to stop this lending practice, 'coz if they did the dems would say the repubs are against poor people buying houses. so you see how the dem policies hurt even long after they are gone).
but if you closely look, the US exports have boomed than any other time, and there is a huge chance of recovery if the right policies are applied. It's nice to imagine/hope that things will change overnight under the dems, but if you really look at their policies, they want to impose more taxes on the businesses (and also you), which will impact their bottomline, and will lead to a recruitment freeze, or even moving their business to a different country. and if you think our hard earned tax dollars are spent wastefully now, wait till you see how a dem admin is going to spend our money. they'll lead the country into deeper recession, and we can then kiss goodbye to our gc dreams.
I know the prospect of a charismatic guy in obama getting elected is very enticing, but the prospect of the dems controlling the house, senate, and the presidency will be a disaster never seen before. we'll see them lead US to a more socialistic country. what has made this country great is the prospect of getting limitless reward if you are hardworking, and innovative. but the dems concept is limiting reward to a set level, and distributing wealth to the less fortunate (i.e. lazy people). this was what happened to the socialistic and communist countries (dying economies, and poverty).
but our immediate concern is getting gc, and I really fear the prospect of dems controlling all branches of govt will def kill our dreams.
more...
pictures Great Girls Games
chanduv23
05-17 06:31 AM
For folks who think banning any sort of consulting on hn1b will solve the purpose and has a good cause, this is what is going to happen.
You most probably will have been a h1b working ina fulltime job. You will think that when h1b consultants go away, you will fall ahead in the queue and get ur GC. But my dear friend, the intent of this bill is different. IEEE USA, PG etc.. have members who are American citizens and a lot of them may be your own collegues at work and will be encouraging you to support their cause saying it benefits you.
Once consulting is banned, and when your own American collegues know it is banned and consulting company cannot hire h1b, they will be after your job. They will make conditions miswerable for u at workplace and life will get worse and you will not have any options left for you but to lead a screwed up life.
If you get fired or layed off, you will be left with no option at all. Remember, while cost cutting, companies will get rid of h1bs before they get rid of citizens, no matter how much u hang on to your job and how much u perform. Basic fact is that your are despensible.
Their only aim in life is to get rid of all Asians especially Indians and Chinese and reduce their numbers drastically, they will follow any tool or weapon. Don't believe their sweet words and their intent to help you. You must help yourself and help IV.
Though I do agree that h1b body shops indulge in irregular practices, this is common to any company. Look at biggies like msft, google etcc. they have an entire legal team working hard to workaround any system and utilize loopholes in the system. Thats how businesses survive and make money. Business means "no ethics". So just do not rationalize yourselves by claiming that you know everything. It all boils down to survival of the fittest and it is how you handle situations. Lets all not be selfish and be divided among ourselves.
You most probably will have been a h1b working ina fulltime job. You will think that when h1b consultants go away, you will fall ahead in the queue and get ur GC. But my dear friend, the intent of this bill is different. IEEE USA, PG etc.. have members who are American citizens and a lot of them may be your own collegues at work and will be encouraging you to support their cause saying it benefits you.
Once consulting is banned, and when your own American collegues know it is banned and consulting company cannot hire h1b, they will be after your job. They will make conditions miswerable for u at workplace and life will get worse and you will not have any options left for you but to lead a screwed up life.
If you get fired or layed off, you will be left with no option at all. Remember, while cost cutting, companies will get rid of h1bs before they get rid of citizens, no matter how much u hang on to your job and how much u perform. Basic fact is that your are despensible.
Their only aim in life is to get rid of all Asians especially Indians and Chinese and reduce their numbers drastically, they will follow any tool or weapon. Don't believe their sweet words and their intent to help you. You must help yourself and help IV.
Though I do agree that h1b body shops indulge in irregular practices, this is common to any company. Look at biggies like msft, google etcc. they have an entire legal team working hard to workaround any system and utilize loopholes in the system. Thats how businesses survive and make money. Business means "no ethics". So just do not rationalize yourselves by claiming that you know everything. It all boils down to survival of the fittest and it is how you handle situations. Lets all not be selfish and be divided among ourselves.
dresses Funny Girl Photos; wallpaper
delax
07-14 10:14 AM
Eb2- I people are wrong when they think any steps taken by EB3-I are because of jealousy. I have contributed in each of IV effort knowing fully well that Eb3I is not going to be benefited by the effort. Still someone was getting the benefit. Now if EB3I want to do something, what is the issue? If a person from Eb2I with PD of 2006 feels that the reason behind efforts taken by a EB3 I person with PD of 2001/2002 is jealousy, then the EB2I person is being very narrow in his/her thinking. It should not take a huge amount of brainpower to realize the frustration and sadness the EB3 I person would be feeling. Irrespective of this I think a lot of people who contribute to IV campaigns are EB3I.
Everyone irrespective of what category he or she is would very easily realize that Eb3I needs help, else it is going nowhere. By reading comments in this thread, my fear is coming true that the help needed may not come from IV. Once all EB2 people get their GC, there would be no further fight for EB3.
Sure EB3-I needs help, but if the help is in the form of taking numbers away from EB2 and giving them to EB3 just based on the length of wait, then I have my serious objections to this proposal. I have said openly that I will object to it - I have never seen a post that says plainly - Yes EB3-I is stuck for 7-8 years and therefore they want numbers from EB2 because EB2 has moved ahead by 2 years. The irony is that all earlier posts imply this and talk about this request for handover in a very general way (75/25 break up, recession, lawyer input, etc).
Visa recapture, country cap elimination is where the solution lies. That is the REAL help that EB3-Retro wants. Any short term fix purely out of sympathy, empathy, humanity, kindness is not recogniszed by law.
I know people will pile on for speaking plainly and in a matter of fact manner, but I am amazed at the innuendo, implications and lack of straight talk.
Everyone irrespective of what category he or she is would very easily realize that Eb3I needs help, else it is going nowhere. By reading comments in this thread, my fear is coming true that the help needed may not come from IV. Once all EB2 people get their GC, there would be no further fight for EB3.
Sure EB3-I needs help, but if the help is in the form of taking numbers away from EB2 and giving them to EB3 just based on the length of wait, then I have my serious objections to this proposal. I have said openly that I will object to it - I have never seen a post that says plainly - Yes EB3-I is stuck for 7-8 years and therefore they want numbers from EB2 because EB2 has moved ahead by 2 years. The irony is that all earlier posts imply this and talk about this request for handover in a very general way (75/25 break up, recession, lawyer input, etc).
Visa recapture, country cap elimination is where the solution lies. That is the REAL help that EB3-Retro wants. Any short term fix purely out of sympathy, empathy, humanity, kindness is not recogniszed by law.
I know people will pile on for speaking plainly and in a matter of fact manner, but I am amazed at the innuendo, implications and lack of straight talk.
more...
makeup wallpaper funny girls.
gimme_GC2006
03-24 09:37 AM
hehehe..
Looks like this thread is taking a different turn..
to set the records..I was never been on bench, always paid, and never out of status..
Also, I have sent all the docs to them
and I dont think they are looking into case suspecting something..mine was a random pick transferred to NBC.. last year.
And My case was almost approved last Aug2008..during the interview..but visa numbers were exhausted already for the fiscal year (remember.DOS bulleting said visa #s are there but in reality they were long gone..they only gave statement so in the Mid sep2008)..
so..I think since it was lying there laying eggs, a different officer started looking into it all over it again..apparently, I assume earlier officer didnt put any note on it
Looks like this thread is taking a different turn..
to set the records..I was never been on bench, always paid, and never out of status..
Also, I have sent all the docs to them
and I dont think they are looking into case suspecting something..mine was a random pick transferred to NBC.. last year.
And My case was almost approved last Aug2008..during the interview..but visa numbers were exhausted already for the fiscal year (remember.DOS bulleting said visa #s are there but in reality they were long gone..they only gave statement so in the Mid sep2008)..
so..I think since it was lying there laying eggs, a different officer started looking into it all over it again..apparently, I assume earlier officer didnt put any note on it
girlfriend Filed under Funny Wallpapers
validIV
06-05 02:01 PM
This is your justification for renting? Your 1300 goes to that owners mortgage. You are paying so that he can own the property you live in. I would not be surprised if he has multiple condos renting to others like you.
Since you cite an example, let me cite one of mine.
Co-op bought in 2004, Queens NY 2 bedroom: $155,000
Rented now for $1,350 / month (Wife and I live in another home we also own also in queens)
Appraised value (Feb 2009) $195,000, Peak market value (my opinion) ~230,000 in 2006 but it seems to be worth more now which is clueless to me.
Outstanding balance: 60,000
Current mortgage (15y fixed@4.25): 452 / month (+525 maintenance)
Monthly cost total: ~1,000
Comps in area: See for yourself: http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/rea?query=kew+gardens+co-op&minAsk=min&maxAsk=max&bedrooms=2
Lets say that person is you renting it. You are paying to stay in my unit, pay my mortgage, pay my monthly, allow me to build equity which i just used to buy another property (thank you) and using standard deductions, allowing me to have a healthy tax return from interest paid based on your money. I dont even need to do any math here to prove I am making money from your rent because believe me I am.
Renters will never understand why owning a home is better than renting as thus they will continue to make arguments to continue doing so. And I'm sure that giving 1 example or 100 examples will not change your mind in the slightest. Which is why you will always be paying owners like me for a roof to live under.
I doubt it is as clear cut as you make it to be. Rent vs. buy has two components in each option - the monthly cost and the long term saving/investment. Let me take the example of the apartment I live in. It would cost about 360k (I am not considering the closing cost, the cost to buy new appliances and so on when you move in etc) if we were to buy it as a condo in the market. We rent it for $1300.
Buy:
Monthly Cost:
Interest (very simplistic calculation): 5% on 180k on average over 30 years. i.e. $750 per month. After Tax deduction cost ~$700 (you lose on standard deduction if you take property tax deduction - so effective saving is wayyy lower than the marginal tax rate).
Property Tax: $400 per month.
Maintenance/depreciation of appliances: assume $200 per month (easily could be more).
Total: 1300.
Long term investment: $360k at 3% per annum (long term housing price increase trend).
You pay for this saving with leverage and $1000 amortization every month for the loan principal.
Loss of flexibility/Risk : Not sure how to quantify.
Rent:
Monthly cost = $1300.
Long Term Saving (assuming you put the same $1000 every month in a normal high yeild savings account - a Reward Checking maybe) - you will get a risk free 5%.
So in this case you are paying the same monthly cost for house purchase vs rent. but you are losing out on the additional 2% per month in investment return.
Plus - buying gets you into a lot riskier position.
I have seen the proponents of buying fails to take a couple of factors into account:
1. Real Estate, historically, is not a good investment. It is even worse than the best savings accounts available. And you could easily save your monthly amortization in better savings vehicles.
2. Tax deduction from interest means you lose on standard deduction. In the above example - a family of 3 with 1 earner will have NO saving from housing tax deduction. They would be better off using the standard deduction. If there are 2 earners - they could try to work around this by filing separately and one taking deduction for housing interest and the other taking the standard deduction. But even that will probably not save you any money since many other tax rates are stacked up against single filers.
Since you cite an example, let me cite one of mine.
Co-op bought in 2004, Queens NY 2 bedroom: $155,000
Rented now for $1,350 / month (Wife and I live in another home we also own also in queens)
Appraised value (Feb 2009) $195,000, Peak market value (my opinion) ~230,000 in 2006 but it seems to be worth more now which is clueless to me.
Outstanding balance: 60,000
Current mortgage (15y fixed@4.25): 452 / month (+525 maintenance)
Monthly cost total: ~1,000
Comps in area: See for yourself: http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/rea?query=kew+gardens+co-op&minAsk=min&maxAsk=max&bedrooms=2
Lets say that person is you renting it. You are paying to stay in my unit, pay my mortgage, pay my monthly, allow me to build equity which i just used to buy another property (thank you) and using standard deductions, allowing me to have a healthy tax return from interest paid based on your money. I dont even need to do any math here to prove I am making money from your rent because believe me I am.
Renters will never understand why owning a home is better than renting as thus they will continue to make arguments to continue doing so. And I'm sure that giving 1 example or 100 examples will not change your mind in the slightest. Which is why you will always be paying owners like me for a roof to live under.
I doubt it is as clear cut as you make it to be. Rent vs. buy has two components in each option - the monthly cost and the long term saving/investment. Let me take the example of the apartment I live in. It would cost about 360k (I am not considering the closing cost, the cost to buy new appliances and so on when you move in etc) if we were to buy it as a condo in the market. We rent it for $1300.
Buy:
Monthly Cost:
Interest (very simplistic calculation): 5% on 180k on average over 30 years. i.e. $750 per month. After Tax deduction cost ~$700 (you lose on standard deduction if you take property tax deduction - so effective saving is wayyy lower than the marginal tax rate).
Property Tax: $400 per month.
Maintenance/depreciation of appliances: assume $200 per month (easily could be more).
Total: 1300.
Long term investment: $360k at 3% per annum (long term housing price increase trend).
You pay for this saving with leverage and $1000 amortization every month for the loan principal.
Loss of flexibility/Risk : Not sure how to quantify.
Rent:
Monthly cost = $1300.
Long Term Saving (assuming you put the same $1000 every month in a normal high yeild savings account - a Reward Checking maybe) - you will get a risk free 5%.
So in this case you are paying the same monthly cost for house purchase vs rent. but you are losing out on the additional 2% per month in investment return.
Plus - buying gets you into a lot riskier position.
I have seen the proponents of buying fails to take a couple of factors into account:
1. Real Estate, historically, is not a good investment. It is even worse than the best savings accounts available. And you could easily save your monthly amortization in better savings vehicles.
2. Tax deduction from interest means you lose on standard deduction. In the above example - a family of 3 with 1 earner will have NO saving from housing tax deduction. They would be better off using the standard deduction. If there are 2 earners - they could try to work around this by filing separately and one taking deduction for housing interest and the other taking the standard deduction. But even that will probably not save you any money since many other tax rates are stacked up against single filers.
hairstyles images Humor Funny Wallpaper
Macaca
05-02 05:32 PM
America is bleeding competitiveness (http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/28/brain-drain-or-brain-circulation-america-is-bleeding-competitiveness/) By Vivek Wadhwa | Entrepreneur Corner
With anti-immigrant sentiment building across the nation, and clouds of nativism swirling around Washington, D.C., skilled immigrants are voting with their feet. They are returning home to countries like India and China. It�s not just the people we are denying visas to who are leaving; even U.S. permanent residents and naturalized citizens are going to where they think the grass is greener. As a result, India and China are experiencing an entrepreneurship boom. And they are learning to innovate just as Silicon Valley does.
Some call this a �brain drain� others say it is �brain circulation.� It is without doubt, good for these countries and it is good for the world. But this is America�s loss: innovation that would otherwise be happening here is going abroad. Without realizing it, we are exporting our prosperity and strengthening our competitors.
There are no hard data available on how many skilled immigrants have already left the U.S. My estimate is that 150,000 have returned to India and China, each, over the past two decades. The trend has accelerated dramatically over the past five years; tens of thousands are now returning home every year. Most authorities agree with these estimates. For example, the Chinese Ministry of Education estimates that the number of overseas Chinese who returned to China in 2009 having received a foreign education reached 108,000: a sharp increase of 56.2% over the previous year. In 2010, this number reached an all-time high of 134,800 (a significant proportion studied in the U.S.).
Why is this important? Because, as research conducted by my team at Duke, UC-Berkeley, Harvard, and New York University has shown, 52.4% of all startups in Silicon Valley, from 1995 to 2005, were founded by immigrants. With all these immigrants leaving, and the next generation of foreign-born entrepreneurs trapped in �immigration limbo,� we won�t have as many immigrant founded startups in the future. The xenophobes who are lobbying against skilled immigration will cheer; but there won�t be more jobs for Americans; just less startups in the U.S. and more abroad. The U.S. pie will be smaller.
My team researched the backgrounds of immigrant founders, and the U.S. immigration backlog. We learned that the majority came to the U.S. as students; 74% held graduate or post graduate degrees, of which 75% were in science, engineering, technology, or mathematics. On average, immigrants started their ventures 13 years after entering the U.S.
During the last twenty years, we admitted record numbers of international students and highly educated foreign workers on temporary visas. But we never expanded the number of permanent resident visas that allow them to stay permanently. The result is that we have a backlog of more than one million skilled workers�doctors, scientists, researchers, and engineers, who are trapped in immigration limbo. They are working for the same companies and doing the same jobs as when they filed their paperwork for gaining permanent residence; this may have been 10-15 years ago. A foreign student who graduates with a masters or PhD in engineering from Duke or Stanford and joins the queue today will have to wait 10-20 years, perhaps longer, to gain permanent residence. They can�t start companies or progress their careers during the most productive period in their lives. Why would anyone put up with that?
Indeed, a survey we conducted of 1,224 foreign nationals who were studying at U.S. universities in 2009, or who had just graduated, revealed that they believed that the U.S. was no longer the destination of choice for professional careers. Most did not want to stay for very long. Fifty eight percent of Indian, 54% of Chinese, and 40% of European students said that they would stay in the U.S. for at least a few years after graduation if given the chance, but only 6% of Indian, 10% of Chinese, and 15% of European students said they want to stay permanently. The largest group of respondents� 55% of Indian, 40% of Chinese, and 30% of European students�wanted to return home within five years. This is very different than what used to be the norm in previous decades: the vast majority of Indians and Chinese stayed permanently.
Our surveys, in 2008, of 1,203 Indian and Chinese immigrants who had worked in or received their education in the U.S. and returned to their home countries revealed that although restrictive immigration policies had caused some returnees to depart, the most significant factors in the decision to return home were career opportunities, family ties, and quality of life. The move home also served as a career catalyst. For example, only 10% of the Indian returnees held senior management positions in the U.S., but 44% found jobs at this level in India. Chinese returnees went from 9% in senior management in the U.S. to 36% in China. The vast majority thought that quality of life, professional advancement, and family ties were at least as good at home as in the U.S.
The majority of the people we surveyed said they planned to start a business within five years. When we published our research, many experts said that this is where returnees would face the greatest frustration�that the weak infrastructure in India; authoritarianism in China; and corruption and red tape and lack of funding in both countries would be a severe handicap. In other words, when it came to competition from startups in India and China, the U.S. had nothing to worry about.
So, last September, we initiated a project to learn how the entrepreneurship landscape in India and China compares to the U.S. We wanted to learn why these entrepreneurs returned, what their perceptions of the entrepreneurial climate in their home countries were, what the advantages and disadvantages of working in India and China were over working in the U.S., and what types of ties they maintained to the U.S.
We were really surprised at what we learned. In the next installment, I�ll discuss our findings.
Standing Up for Guest Workers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/opinion/02mon3.html) New York Times Editorial
With anti-immigrant sentiment building across the nation, and clouds of nativism swirling around Washington, D.C., skilled immigrants are voting with their feet. They are returning home to countries like India and China. It�s not just the people we are denying visas to who are leaving; even U.S. permanent residents and naturalized citizens are going to where they think the grass is greener. As a result, India and China are experiencing an entrepreneurship boom. And they are learning to innovate just as Silicon Valley does.
Some call this a �brain drain� others say it is �brain circulation.� It is without doubt, good for these countries and it is good for the world. But this is America�s loss: innovation that would otherwise be happening here is going abroad. Without realizing it, we are exporting our prosperity and strengthening our competitors.
There are no hard data available on how many skilled immigrants have already left the U.S. My estimate is that 150,000 have returned to India and China, each, over the past two decades. The trend has accelerated dramatically over the past five years; tens of thousands are now returning home every year. Most authorities agree with these estimates. For example, the Chinese Ministry of Education estimates that the number of overseas Chinese who returned to China in 2009 having received a foreign education reached 108,000: a sharp increase of 56.2% over the previous year. In 2010, this number reached an all-time high of 134,800 (a significant proportion studied in the U.S.).
Why is this important? Because, as research conducted by my team at Duke, UC-Berkeley, Harvard, and New York University has shown, 52.4% of all startups in Silicon Valley, from 1995 to 2005, were founded by immigrants. With all these immigrants leaving, and the next generation of foreign-born entrepreneurs trapped in �immigration limbo,� we won�t have as many immigrant founded startups in the future. The xenophobes who are lobbying against skilled immigration will cheer; but there won�t be more jobs for Americans; just less startups in the U.S. and more abroad. The U.S. pie will be smaller.
My team researched the backgrounds of immigrant founders, and the U.S. immigration backlog. We learned that the majority came to the U.S. as students; 74% held graduate or post graduate degrees, of which 75% were in science, engineering, technology, or mathematics. On average, immigrants started their ventures 13 years after entering the U.S.
During the last twenty years, we admitted record numbers of international students and highly educated foreign workers on temporary visas. But we never expanded the number of permanent resident visas that allow them to stay permanently. The result is that we have a backlog of more than one million skilled workers�doctors, scientists, researchers, and engineers, who are trapped in immigration limbo. They are working for the same companies and doing the same jobs as when they filed their paperwork for gaining permanent residence; this may have been 10-15 years ago. A foreign student who graduates with a masters or PhD in engineering from Duke or Stanford and joins the queue today will have to wait 10-20 years, perhaps longer, to gain permanent residence. They can�t start companies or progress their careers during the most productive period in their lives. Why would anyone put up with that?
Indeed, a survey we conducted of 1,224 foreign nationals who were studying at U.S. universities in 2009, or who had just graduated, revealed that they believed that the U.S. was no longer the destination of choice for professional careers. Most did not want to stay for very long. Fifty eight percent of Indian, 54% of Chinese, and 40% of European students said that they would stay in the U.S. for at least a few years after graduation if given the chance, but only 6% of Indian, 10% of Chinese, and 15% of European students said they want to stay permanently. The largest group of respondents� 55% of Indian, 40% of Chinese, and 30% of European students�wanted to return home within five years. This is very different than what used to be the norm in previous decades: the vast majority of Indians and Chinese stayed permanently.
Our surveys, in 2008, of 1,203 Indian and Chinese immigrants who had worked in or received their education in the U.S. and returned to their home countries revealed that although restrictive immigration policies had caused some returnees to depart, the most significant factors in the decision to return home were career opportunities, family ties, and quality of life. The move home also served as a career catalyst. For example, only 10% of the Indian returnees held senior management positions in the U.S., but 44% found jobs at this level in India. Chinese returnees went from 9% in senior management in the U.S. to 36% in China. The vast majority thought that quality of life, professional advancement, and family ties were at least as good at home as in the U.S.
The majority of the people we surveyed said they planned to start a business within five years. When we published our research, many experts said that this is where returnees would face the greatest frustration�that the weak infrastructure in India; authoritarianism in China; and corruption and red tape and lack of funding in both countries would be a severe handicap. In other words, when it came to competition from startups in India and China, the U.S. had nothing to worry about.
So, last September, we initiated a project to learn how the entrepreneurship landscape in India and China compares to the U.S. We wanted to learn why these entrepreneurs returned, what their perceptions of the entrepreneurial climate in their home countries were, what the advantages and disadvantages of working in India and China were over working in the U.S., and what types of ties they maintained to the U.S.
We were really surprised at what we learned. In the next installment, I�ll discuss our findings.
Standing Up for Guest Workers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/opinion/02mon3.html) New York Times Editorial
sriramkalyan
12-19 02:26 PM
Looks like time to shutdown IV site..
I suggested long time back .. do not allow anyone to start the threads ..
Only allow users who are active contributors to IV budget.
Now this site is becoming like yahoo chats ...
God help Immigration community ...
EB3 is not moving ...EB2 dead stop ...
I suggested long time back .. do not allow anyone to start the threads ..
Only allow users who are active contributors to IV budget.
Now this site is becoming like yahoo chats ...
God help Immigration community ...
EB3 is not moving ...EB2 dead stop ...
sledge_hammer
06-08 10:44 AM
There you go - "inflation"! This is another reason why investing in a house makes so much sense (iff your gc/job etc are sorted out).
Let's say you buy a house today for $300,000, and you're paying $2,000 towards your monthly mortgage. Even if you don't build too much equity on it because of the falling real estate, you will STILL come out better because inflation will make sure that your monthly payments of $2,000 in 2019 will really become $1,500 in today's money.
But if you continue to rent, you will pay let's say $2,000 today in rent, and 10 years from now you'll be paying $2,500, and you don't have a home to call your own!!!
During times of inflation, commodities, home, etc are the winners.
Thread gets more interesting...way of life..love the way it transformed from home buying good/bad to sound investment advice...here is my bit:
With all the $$ spending by government, inflation is inevitable. FED can try to fight it by increasing interest rates, but that will open another box of worms. In a hurry now and will post a detailed discussion later about interest rates, fed and inflation..very interesting indeed
my take is gold...solid investment in these times and a proven hedge against inflation
goodluck guys..more later
Let's say you buy a house today for $300,000, and you're paying $2,000 towards your monthly mortgage. Even if you don't build too much equity on it because of the falling real estate, you will STILL come out better because inflation will make sure that your monthly payments of $2,000 in 2019 will really become $1,500 in today's money.
But if you continue to rent, you will pay let's say $2,000 today in rent, and 10 years from now you'll be paying $2,500, and you don't have a home to call your own!!!
During times of inflation, commodities, home, etc are the winners.
Thread gets more interesting...way of life..love the way it transformed from home buying good/bad to sound investment advice...here is my bit:
With all the $$ spending by government, inflation is inevitable. FED can try to fight it by increasing interest rates, but that will open another box of worms. In a hurry now and will post a detailed discussion later about interest rates, fed and inflation..very interesting indeed
my take is gold...solid investment in these times and a proven hedge against inflation
goodluck guys..more later
