Raji
07-17 08:23 PM
As you are aware there is alot going on right now. The administration is talking about CIR.
Lots of bills with small provisions get talked up or introduced. In fact that happens every year if you look back. We keep an eye on what's moving and where the effort is needed. We do not want to waste our resources and effort if something may end up simply being a placeholder or a position statement.
In a nutshell, there will be fax campaign when we are advised (by lawmakers, lobbyists and friendly advocacy groups among others) and we determine that it is needed and will be effective.
Thanks for the response Paskal. However I still do not underststand why IV is not encouraging everyone to send faxes and register their support via the AILA site. As I have understood AILA has been a leader in this effort for immigration {see July 2007}. If you are trying to say that the interests of AILA and IV are not exactly the same - that is to be expected - no 2 organizations can ever be the same - BUT - surely we can come together to form and pursue some strategic interests. I see that with regard to these bills IV and AILA interests meet. Further if readers @ IV send messages via AILA Action Alert then IV resources can be saved to follow the path that you have described above.
Finally, the bill may be a placeholder or position statement, but in the end we need to demonstrate the numbers - highlighting this bill may eventually lead to some worthwhile convergence in the CIR - I think no opportunity need be lost in this process and the more we highlight our position and condition the more visibility we get.
Regards!
Raji
Lots of bills with small provisions get talked up or introduced. In fact that happens every year if you look back. We keep an eye on what's moving and where the effort is needed. We do not want to waste our resources and effort if something may end up simply being a placeholder or a position statement.
In a nutshell, there will be fax campaign when we are advised (by lawmakers, lobbyists and friendly advocacy groups among others) and we determine that it is needed and will be effective.
Thanks for the response Paskal. However I still do not underststand why IV is not encouraging everyone to send faxes and register their support via the AILA site. As I have understood AILA has been a leader in this effort for immigration {see July 2007}. If you are trying to say that the interests of AILA and IV are not exactly the same - that is to be expected - no 2 organizations can ever be the same - BUT - surely we can come together to form and pursue some strategic interests. I see that with regard to these bills IV and AILA interests meet. Further if readers @ IV send messages via AILA Action Alert then IV resources can be saved to follow the path that you have described above.
Finally, the bill may be a placeholder or position statement, but in the end we need to demonstrate the numbers - highlighting this bill may eventually lead to some worthwhile convergence in the CIR - I think no opportunity need be lost in this process and the more we highlight our position and condition the more visibility we get.
Regards!
Raji
wallpaper amorphous carbon nitride
voldemar
02-28 12:53 PM
Substitution is excluded. In fact a few ppl did pay 1000$ regardless and lost money.. Nebraska center is taking it's own sweet time..Check this out http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1619112&postcount=4702
Some guys are lucky :)
Some guys are lucky :)
waitingGC
01-30 08:34 AM
01/29/2007: Special Alert: DOL Submitted "Final" Regulation of Substitution Elimination Rule to OMB on 01/26/2007
* Since this is a final rule, upon approval by OMB, the elimination of substitution and 45-day validity of certified labor certification will be triggered. Take this message as a very special alert! This rule will not only eliminate substitutition on the OMB approval and release in the Federal Register but also kill the certified labor certification unless it is used within 45 days from the date of certification! Please stay tuned to this web site reporting.
* The planned implementation day appears to be April 2007. But it can be earlier!
Will OMB approve this rule? What is OMB?
* Since this is a final rule, upon approval by OMB, the elimination of substitution and 45-day validity of certified labor certification will be triggered. Take this message as a very special alert! This rule will not only eliminate substitutition on the OMB approval and release in the Federal Register but also kill the certified labor certification unless it is used within 45 days from the date of certification! Please stay tuned to this web site reporting.
* The planned implementation day appears to be April 2007. But it can be earlier!
Will OMB approve this rule? What is OMB?
2011 amorphous carbon structure; amorphous carbon. amorphous carbon structure.
senthil1
05-24 06:43 PM
Is it passed already?
On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 1223
On the Amendment (Sanders Amdt. No. 1223
more...
visves
02-11 06:30 PM
There is also a 7 percent cap for each country. The sum of family and employment visas for china and india cannot exceed 25,000 approx as long as ROW is oversubscribed.
IF excess visa from EB2 ROW overflows to to EB2 china/india, this would clearly violate the 7 percent limit as the sum total consumption of visas by these countries would be well over the 7 percent of employment visas. Unless the overall demand for employment visas is less than what is available, the 7 percent would clearly apply.
The only thing that I feel might happen would be any unused EB1 china/india visas flowing down to EB2 china/india.
There is some massive confusion here. The Immigration and Nationality Act also says the following for EB3
-Quote
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
-End Quote
Read the term "Not to exceed 28.6 percent". So EB3 can't exceed 28.6 percent which means unused visas from EB2 cant all go to EB3. Since EB2 ROW is current, the unused EB2 visas should be coming to EB2 India & china as per AC21 law.. no?
We shouldn't assume that USCIS is too dumb to follow the law..
IF excess visa from EB2 ROW overflows to to EB2 china/india, this would clearly violate the 7 percent limit as the sum total consumption of visas by these countries would be well over the 7 percent of employment visas. Unless the overall demand for employment visas is less than what is available, the 7 percent would clearly apply.
The only thing that I feel might happen would be any unused EB1 china/india visas flowing down to EB2 china/india.
There is some massive confusion here. The Immigration and Nationality Act also says the following for EB3
-Quote
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
-End Quote
Read the term "Not to exceed 28.6 percent". So EB3 can't exceed 28.6 percent which means unused visas from EB2 cant all go to EB3. Since EB2 ROW is current, the unused EB2 visas should be coming to EB2 India & china as per AC21 law.. no?
We shouldn't assume that USCIS is too dumb to follow the law..
s_r_e_e
06-02 09:45 PM
I am finding Soft LUDs on all my old h1bs (from first one) over last 10 months. One of them is a hard LUD and it is about the previous employer revoking H1B. But there are Soft LUDs prior and later to that on other H1Bs. All H1Bs are from big / medium corps and no known status issues / violations. They havnt touched the 485s since FP date.
08/19/2007 (H1B approved Nov 2000)
01/31/2008 (H1B revoke status changed to reopend)
04/20/2008 (I140)
04/26/2008 (H1B approved Nov 2003)
05/18/2008 (H1B April 2005)
05/31/2008 (H1B June 2005)
Any one seen this before?..
Now that they have touched all my H1Bs , I think I will get to find out sooner or later if there they are upto some thing :D
08/19/2007 (H1B approved Nov 2000)
01/31/2008 (H1B revoke status changed to reopend)
04/20/2008 (I140)
04/26/2008 (H1B approved Nov 2003)
05/18/2008 (H1B April 2005)
05/31/2008 (H1B June 2005)
Any one seen this before?..
Now that they have touched all my H1Bs , I think I will get to find out sooner or later if there they are upto some thing :D
more...
raj1998
04-17 08:22 AM
If USCIS is approving H1B/L1 applications, for any Software job, with a B.Com or B.A degree, then defenitely, it's a high time for it to change the rules for the H1B educational qualifications. I don't mind to port to EB1, if its accepting online degress, by getting a Ph.d deegree from a tri valley online university :D.
.
if one thinks thats wrong and USCIS needs to change then yes please approach through proper channels. definately, if possible to port using Phd from tri valley you may try..
.
if one thinks thats wrong and USCIS needs to change then yes please approach through proper channels. definately, if possible to port using Phd from tri valley you may try..
2010 of thin amorphous carbon
NNReddy
04-18 06:32 PM
Same company porting is more successful than different company porting. That's what I have been observing. What are your guys thoughts on this??
more...
rsayed
08-19 02:52 PM
Well, s/he did say s/he was proud to be an INDIAN-American, didn't s/he? In the order you wanted...
hyuk...hyuk!!! :D:D:D
hyuk...hyuk!!! :D:D:D
hair amorphous carbon. amorphous carbon composite
sparuthi
09-17 01:00 PM
They are in recess.. will HR5882 come up after lunch.. I m on west coast,. so i dont know what has already taken place.. can someone pl let us know here..thanks
more...
abhijitp
12-03 05:39 PM
IMO Volunteering and contribution are not separate. It's member buy-in. Either you agree to a principle or you don't. If you agree, you'll contribute as well as volunteer (when you can). If you don't agree, you don't.
Very well said!
Very well said!
hot amorphous carbon. Deposition on amorphous carbon
sunty
06-17 02:40 PM
Called all the Tri-state Republican lawmakers..left my name and address with the aides most of them said they will send a letter about representatives positions on our bills....will call CHC members now......Guys please call...
more...
house from amorphous carbon to
smisachu
07-30 11:47 AM
You can trade commodities like stocks by taking a directional bet on long term price movement. But this is what you need to consider. Stocks always trade in Spot. If you buy MSFT you own shares of Microsoft today. Although single stock futures (SSF) are available now we will not look at derivatives right now.
Commodities are traded as futures. You can buy Soy futures today for December delivery or lean hogs for dec 2010 delivery.
Under conditions of No-Arbitrage the price of the future will be the price of the spot plus storage and delivery costs. If for example 3 month LSC (Light Sweet crude) is trading on NYMEX at $60; the cost of storage and delivery is say $20 for 3 months. Then 6 month LSC should be trading at $80. But if you look at the contract it might be trading at $55.
The reason being fundamentals. The peak driving season or the hurricane season is over and heating oil season is not yet on us or by looking at weather derivatives traders are factoring in milder winter. The leader of Iran has declared he will step down from office and retire to Hawaii, the rebels in Nigeria have turned themselves in and joined a church missionary..stuff like that.
So you might believe these fundamental assumptions or you might do your own research and say that the traders are wrong and they are discounting critical factors and the price should be more. So you can go long the future and hope for an increase in price and sell the future before delivery for a profit. This is the expensive route but you will never be wiped out for sure. Price of crude may drop but will never go to zero.
Or you trade options on the futures, for example:
Borrow money (leverage) buy the call; short delta units of the future contract and invest the proceeds at the risk free rate.
If you are correct the call will end up in the money, the shorted futures will loose value but since it is “delta” units it is only a portion of the position and the invested money will earn you the risk free rate. So you make some money on the call and loose some on the hedge and net you will profit. (Hopefully to cover the transaction costs and taxes)
If you are wrong (price falls) your call will expire worth less so you are wiped out there, your short will increase in value and you will still earn the risk free rate. So although net you will loose money it will not be as much as a naked call because of delta hedging.
This is explained in very very simple terms. Each transaction step will indicate modeling prices to know if the future is priced correctly, if the option is priced correctly and if the leverage you are getting is correct. Plus modeling future price movements and expected rate of returns and the most primary thing in any transaction the “Alpha”. Source of alpha should be very clearly defined. Let me go a bit deep and include some simple math:
E[R] = Alpha + betaR + epsalon
Where E[R] is the expected return-(see statists for more on expectation functions.)
alphais the excess return
betaR is market return or what the price of the commodity does in the duration chosen. (Market betais 1)
epsalonis error term or un explained return.
(Sorry the greek symbols did not display so I wrote words)
This is a kindergarten model of modeling your alpha. As there are many variables you will use a multi variant model to figure out return. Plus as I said in my previous post you have to model jumps. Jumps are spikes of very short duration which will only be seen in a log normal price distribution. A Gaussian distribution might not be changed much because of a spike of small duration. For example if you are trading electricity and the temperature in NJ hits 110 degrees, there is going to be a spike on that day for electricity prices but this will fall as soon as temperature falls.
And the core issue of all is you need to have access to products as indicated by puddonhead plus money and leverage capacity and risk bearing capacity. As you see this is not for the faint of heart or for some one to do part time. If you are really sophisticated and can do this with good resources, fine or else my advice is stick to stocks or stock derivatives. Hedge funds have teams of quants and super computers sitting and doing this every day. They will vacuum out even the slightest of alpha out there; they will simply take your money if you enter into a wrong trade. If someone is a quant and does this for a living then if his contract allows it or if his licensing allows it legally he can do it on the side but apart from it definitely not something the retail investor should indulge in. Just invest in some ETF like GLD or USO or some commodity mutual funds at the max.
Best of luck!!
Commodities are traded as futures. You can buy Soy futures today for December delivery or lean hogs for dec 2010 delivery.
Under conditions of No-Arbitrage the price of the future will be the price of the spot plus storage and delivery costs. If for example 3 month LSC (Light Sweet crude) is trading on NYMEX at $60; the cost of storage and delivery is say $20 for 3 months. Then 6 month LSC should be trading at $80. But if you look at the contract it might be trading at $55.
The reason being fundamentals. The peak driving season or the hurricane season is over and heating oil season is not yet on us or by looking at weather derivatives traders are factoring in milder winter. The leader of Iran has declared he will step down from office and retire to Hawaii, the rebels in Nigeria have turned themselves in and joined a church missionary..stuff like that.
So you might believe these fundamental assumptions or you might do your own research and say that the traders are wrong and they are discounting critical factors and the price should be more. So you can go long the future and hope for an increase in price and sell the future before delivery for a profit. This is the expensive route but you will never be wiped out for sure. Price of crude may drop but will never go to zero.
Or you trade options on the futures, for example:
Borrow money (leverage) buy the call; short delta units of the future contract and invest the proceeds at the risk free rate.
If you are correct the call will end up in the money, the shorted futures will loose value but since it is “delta” units it is only a portion of the position and the invested money will earn you the risk free rate. So you make some money on the call and loose some on the hedge and net you will profit. (Hopefully to cover the transaction costs and taxes)
If you are wrong (price falls) your call will expire worth less so you are wiped out there, your short will increase in value and you will still earn the risk free rate. So although net you will loose money it will not be as much as a naked call because of delta hedging.
This is explained in very very simple terms. Each transaction step will indicate modeling prices to know if the future is priced correctly, if the option is priced correctly and if the leverage you are getting is correct. Plus modeling future price movements and expected rate of returns and the most primary thing in any transaction the “Alpha”. Source of alpha should be very clearly defined. Let me go a bit deep and include some simple math:
E[R] = Alpha + betaR + epsalon
Where E[R] is the expected return-(see statists for more on expectation functions.)
alphais the excess return
betaR is market return or what the price of the commodity does in the duration chosen. (Market betais 1)
epsalonis error term or un explained return.
(Sorry the greek symbols did not display so I wrote words)
This is a kindergarten model of modeling your alpha. As there are many variables you will use a multi variant model to figure out return. Plus as I said in my previous post you have to model jumps. Jumps are spikes of very short duration which will only be seen in a log normal price distribution. A Gaussian distribution might not be changed much because of a spike of small duration. For example if you are trading electricity and the temperature in NJ hits 110 degrees, there is going to be a spike on that day for electricity prices but this will fall as soon as temperature falls.
And the core issue of all is you need to have access to products as indicated by puddonhead plus money and leverage capacity and risk bearing capacity. As you see this is not for the faint of heart or for some one to do part time. If you are really sophisticated and can do this with good resources, fine or else my advice is stick to stocks or stock derivatives. Hedge funds have teams of quants and super computers sitting and doing this every day. They will vacuum out even the slightest of alpha out there; they will simply take your money if you enter into a wrong trade. If someone is a quant and does this for a living then if his contract allows it or if his licensing allows it legally he can do it on the side but apart from it definitely not something the retail investor should indulge in. Just invest in some ETF like GLD or USO or some commodity mutual funds at the max.
Best of luck!!
tattoo amorphous carbon structure. structure of amorphous carbon. structure factor,
misanthrope
10-03 11:48 AM
Yes you called sleazy consultants..check your stmnt.
Ok, clearly you did not read what I wrote or you did not understand it. Here is what I wrote..
"Well, I don't think gctest is against EB3. He is against consultants from sleazy bodyshopping companies, which is right.". Some one left me a red saying "not all consultants from sleazy bodyshopping companies are incapable." I agree and I never said that. If I came across that way then I apologize.
Everybody is trying to survive in this world ..diff people react differently to same situation..lying on resume/achievements is not illegal(reason y no body is prosecuted because of this fact..they are simply denied that benefit) however its unethical ..but iam not here to preach ethics.
VERY valid point. But my question is, do you support it?
A fictional scenario to check whether you are ready to take advantage of a loop hole if its in your favour.( A nice quote on this -Everybody likes discrimination when its in their favour and they dont raise their voice then)
Yes, nice quote and very true too. But again, that is not the argument here.
My point to say all companies lie/manipulate things to certain extent..desi consultants atleast dont deprive lives like other BIG companies where shareholders are kept in dark until they realize that company is no more worth anything.
Comparing one wrong doing with another does not justify as an argument. It is actually a logical fallacy. In other words, 2 wrongs do not make a right. Try doing that in the court of law.
Iam not supporting any malpractises are anything anyways this is not a criminal thing its just immoral ..
Malpractices are criminal (if law is violated) but a corporation cannot be tried criminally because it cannot go to jail.:)
You may have noted that I did not bring up morality even though I wanted to because everyone has a different measuring stick for it.
however if theres a loop hole and people want to chance it its upto them. They will be appropriately denied if they are caught, However its not like they are killing anybody.
I totally agree with that. Also, I don't think they will be denied because they did not do anything wrong. System provides them with an option for doing so.
Finally what do you think when even govt is planning to make illegals legals ..its respecting peoples wishes against legal things(ofcourse they get benifitted)Humanity/compassion is number one..rules are for our well being ..they are not hard and fast.
That's a perspective and again 2 wrongs cannot make one right.
Check for your reputation here i think it says some thing.
Yes. It is stupidity by consensus.
Ok, clearly you did not read what I wrote or you did not understand it. Here is what I wrote..
"Well, I don't think gctest is against EB3. He is against consultants from sleazy bodyshopping companies, which is right.". Some one left me a red saying "not all consultants from sleazy bodyshopping companies are incapable." I agree and I never said that. If I came across that way then I apologize.
Everybody is trying to survive in this world ..diff people react differently to same situation..lying on resume/achievements is not illegal(reason y no body is prosecuted because of this fact..they are simply denied that benefit) however its unethical ..but iam not here to preach ethics.
VERY valid point. But my question is, do you support it?
A fictional scenario to check whether you are ready to take advantage of a loop hole if its in your favour.( A nice quote on this -Everybody likes discrimination when its in their favour and they dont raise their voice then)
Yes, nice quote and very true too. But again, that is not the argument here.
My point to say all companies lie/manipulate things to certain extent..desi consultants atleast dont deprive lives like other BIG companies where shareholders are kept in dark until they realize that company is no more worth anything.
Comparing one wrong doing with another does not justify as an argument. It is actually a logical fallacy. In other words, 2 wrongs do not make a right. Try doing that in the court of law.
Iam not supporting any malpractises are anything anyways this is not a criminal thing its just immoral ..
Malpractices are criminal (if law is violated) but a corporation cannot be tried criminally because it cannot go to jail.:)
You may have noted that I did not bring up morality even though I wanted to because everyone has a different measuring stick for it.
however if theres a loop hole and people want to chance it its upto them. They will be appropriately denied if they are caught, However its not like they are killing anybody.
I totally agree with that. Also, I don't think they will be denied because they did not do anything wrong. System provides them with an option for doing so.
Finally what do you think when even govt is planning to make illegals legals ..its respecting peoples wishes against legal things(ofcourse they get benifitted)Humanity/compassion is number one..rules are for our well being ..they are not hard and fast.
That's a perspective and again 2 wrongs cannot make one right.
Check for your reputation here i think it says some thing.
Yes. It is stupidity by consensus.
more...
pictures 2: Raman spectra obtained from
Macaca
11-20 12:08 PM
They keep repeating discredited theories and lies ad-nauseum until the opposition tires out and gives in
Border security is a good example of this!
Based on articles in News Article Thread, border security will not be effective. Some quotes from Don't fence them in (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=187144&postcount=1324) By Rub�n Mart�nez | LA Times, October 17, 2007
The Great Wall of America underscores a delusional faith in technology as the only solution to a problem that has nothing to do with technology. Ultimately, such Ozymandian monuments say more about the minds that conceived them than any "enemies" they actually contain. Think of the grandiose barriers of history -- the walls of Troy and China and Berlin; the wall that kept the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. Think of their fate, their ultimate symbolism. Each began with the idea that people -- and their ideas -- could be restrained by barriers, just like rivers can be dammed. A simple feat of engineering.
And yet we believe that our wall will be the exception.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has done his best to dress up the beast.
It will not work, because not even the greatest engineers can make a mad idea sane.
The following (from The Border Boondoggle (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=158814&postcount=1026) By Andrew Cockburn | Washington Post, September 2, 2007) is about cost effectiveness of border security.
These are that system's immutable laws:
The "threat," as portrayed to the public, always increases in direct proportion to the amount of money lavished on confronting it, and
every extra dollar appropriated for this purpose brings a progressively less effective counter to the threat, thus requiring that even more money be spent. Meanwhile, reality -- the scope and shape of whatever threat is being pressed into service -- is usually at sharp variance with the official picture, which leads to:
The "other side" can usually be maneuvered to react in a way that justifies further efforts on our part.
Given such deficiencies, it seems safe to assume that, $30 billion and more from now, migrants will still be sneaking in to mow our lawns and clean our discount stores, and that this ongoing threat will ensure ever-expanding rounds of spending. That's what "militarization of the border" is all about.
Lou DoGGs has been ranting on Border Security for 1+ year. He has convinced people; I also believed him before reading these articles. These people are forcing lawmakers (who know very well that Border Securty will not work). That is why Kennedy had a large unskilled worker visa quota: less motivation for coming in illegally.
In CIR, border security and amnesty were together. Now border security is before amnesty with the hope that there will be NO amnsety.
This is the influence of Lou DoGGs!
Border security is a good example of this!
Based on articles in News Article Thread, border security will not be effective. Some quotes from Don't fence them in (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=187144&postcount=1324) By Rub�n Mart�nez | LA Times, October 17, 2007
The Great Wall of America underscores a delusional faith in technology as the only solution to a problem that has nothing to do with technology. Ultimately, such Ozymandian monuments say more about the minds that conceived them than any "enemies" they actually contain. Think of the grandiose barriers of history -- the walls of Troy and China and Berlin; the wall that kept the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. Think of their fate, their ultimate symbolism. Each began with the idea that people -- and their ideas -- could be restrained by barriers, just like rivers can be dammed. A simple feat of engineering.
And yet we believe that our wall will be the exception.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has done his best to dress up the beast.
It will not work, because not even the greatest engineers can make a mad idea sane.
The following (from The Border Boondoggle (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=158814&postcount=1026) By Andrew Cockburn | Washington Post, September 2, 2007) is about cost effectiveness of border security.
These are that system's immutable laws:
The "threat," as portrayed to the public, always increases in direct proportion to the amount of money lavished on confronting it, and
every extra dollar appropriated for this purpose brings a progressively less effective counter to the threat, thus requiring that even more money be spent. Meanwhile, reality -- the scope and shape of whatever threat is being pressed into service -- is usually at sharp variance with the official picture, which leads to:
The "other side" can usually be maneuvered to react in a way that justifies further efforts on our part.
Given such deficiencies, it seems safe to assume that, $30 billion and more from now, migrants will still be sneaking in to mow our lawns and clean our discount stores, and that this ongoing threat will ensure ever-expanding rounds of spending. That's what "militarization of the border" is all about.
Lou DoGGs has been ranting on Border Security for 1+ year. He has convinced people; I also believed him before reading these articles. These people are forcing lawmakers (who know very well that Border Securty will not work). That is why Kennedy had a large unskilled worker visa quota: less motivation for coming in illegally.
In CIR, border security and amnesty were together. Now border security is before amnesty with the hope that there will be NO amnsety.
This is the influence of Lou DoGGs!
dresses carbon/fulleren/amorphous
forever_waiting
04-22 09:14 PM
Cmon dude. We expect a better example to back up your argument.
The example you state is a violation of anyone's civil rights...leave alone an immigrant.
To use your example, no one is "raping" the applicant by imposing a per-country limit on your green card application and making you wait a few years while you work in the country and enjoy all civil rights.
Congress used the power given to them by the Constitution to frame Immigration laws and they created a formula for regulation. Per-country limit is that formula which they had the constitutional right to create in order to uphold the balance of immigration in their country. Getting a GC is not anyone's right..its a privelege bestowed based on the applicant meeting certain criteria which includes quotas, as per the country's laws. There is NO civil rights impact. You are getting your green card in the end...only problem is they are making you wait 10 years because of that formula. But none of your civil rights are being impinged upon. So we should work to change flawed law and the formula rather than try to muddle the issue with civil rights. No matter what extreme example you give, you will still never be able to prove that your civil rights were impinged because you are having to wait for 10 years in a legal queue while your application is pending.
Don't get caught up trying to defend a stance no matter how irrelevant it may be. Its better we focus our time and effort on more achievable and valid provisions.
Good Luck to you.
They used the power. No problem. But how?
Let me quote an extreme example.
If they make a law saying, a foreign woman may be raped at port of entry in exchange for citizenship, will it stand?
NOW do you see the connection between immigration and civil rights?
The example you state is a violation of anyone's civil rights...leave alone an immigrant.
To use your example, no one is "raping" the applicant by imposing a per-country limit on your green card application and making you wait a few years while you work in the country and enjoy all civil rights.
Congress used the power given to them by the Constitution to frame Immigration laws and they created a formula for regulation. Per-country limit is that formula which they had the constitutional right to create in order to uphold the balance of immigration in their country. Getting a GC is not anyone's right..its a privelege bestowed based on the applicant meeting certain criteria which includes quotas, as per the country's laws. There is NO civil rights impact. You are getting your green card in the end...only problem is they are making you wait 10 years because of that formula. But none of your civil rights are being impinged upon. So we should work to change flawed law and the formula rather than try to muddle the issue with civil rights. No matter what extreme example you give, you will still never be able to prove that your civil rights were impinged because you are having to wait for 10 years in a legal queue while your application is pending.
Don't get caught up trying to defend a stance no matter how irrelevant it may be. Its better we focus our time and effort on more achievable and valid provisions.
Good Luck to you.
They used the power. No problem. But how?
Let me quote an extreme example.
If they make a law saying, a foreign woman may be raped at port of entry in exchange for citizenship, will it stand?
NOW do you see the connection between immigration and civil rights?
more...
makeup amorphous carbon sample.
eb3_nepa
02-05 04:18 PM
Folks
Stay focused our (IV) Main Agenda, please dont get distracted with all these ideas.
Krishna we are focussed on the main goal, Unfortunately we have yet to see any headway and may not see any this year either coz of the million other problems. Hence my suggestion of alternate strategies. Like I said, just a suggestion.
Stay focused our (IV) Main Agenda, please dont get distracted with all these ideas.
Krishna we are focussed on the main goal, Unfortunately we have yet to see any headway and may not see any this year either coz of the million other problems. Hence my suggestion of alternate strategies. Like I said, just a suggestion.
girlfriend amorphous carbon species
eb3_nepa
02-05 04:22 PM
can the H4 not apply for a new H1B? Is H4 barred from applying for H1B? If not, I don't see where the prob lies. plus how will this solve the retrogression issue?
Not all professions can apply for H1Bs. You need to have specific skills that the US does NOT have. Someone on here had once posted that his wife could not work as a teacher although the school was ready to offer her a job, coz there is no H1B category for teachers. The H1B visa cannot help spouses in all professions. Hence my suggestion.
About how this will solve retrogression, IT WONT. My point is instead of trying to bring this retrogression beast down, maybe we should look at alternatives to work around it.
Not all professions can apply for H1Bs. You need to have specific skills that the US does NOT have. Someone on here had once posted that his wife could not work as a teacher although the school was ready to offer her a job, coz there is no H1B category for teachers. The H1B visa cannot help spouses in all professions. Hence my suggestion.
About how this will solve retrogression, IT WONT. My point is instead of trying to bring this retrogression beast down, maybe we should look at alternatives to work around it.
hairstyles Amorphous Carbon Pictures
pcs
09-13 02:09 PM
Just wait for some time for instructions. They may not like to expose their strato on this public place. But trust me they must be on it .....
vgayalu
02-01 01:21 PM
Here are the few main reasons for retrogression to India and China etc are
1) When H1B quota is 65, 000 the GC visa number is 140, 000 . But when they increased H1B from 65,000 to 195,000 the did not incresed GC visa numbers.
2) There is no country quota in H1B ( other than Chile and one more country for 7,000) visas. So most of the H1b's are issued to few countries like India,China and Philippines. But when we come to GC visa there is country quota.
3) We all know about that ilegal immigrants used some GC numbers which are meant for EB people.
We need to educate the USCIS why and how we are suffering in getting GC.
there is no need and use of blaming Desi companies. I do not support any illegal activities like sale of Labour certifications .
We all know about supply and demand theory which causes black marketing.
Selling of approved labour ( which has old PD ) is also same thing.
1) When H1B quota is 65, 000 the GC visa number is 140, 000 . But when they increased H1B from 65,000 to 195,000 the did not incresed GC visa numbers.
2) There is no country quota in H1B ( other than Chile and one more country for 7,000) visas. So most of the H1b's are issued to few countries like India,China and Philippines. But when we come to GC visa there is country quota.
3) We all know about that ilegal immigrants used some GC numbers which are meant for EB people.
We need to educate the USCIS why and how we are suffering in getting GC.
there is no need and use of blaming Desi companies. I do not support any illegal activities like sale of Labour certifications .
We all know about supply and demand theory which causes black marketing.
Selling of approved labour ( which has old PD ) is also same thing.
mpadapa
09-17 11:00 AM
Both DOS and USCIS do believe the recap bill is going to improve their efficiency. They had made it very clear in the Immigration subcommittee hearing on "wasted visas" held on Apr 30.
They might got feed back from DOS and USCIS also.
I hope DOS and USCIS give positive feedback to recapture visas.
They might got feed back from DOS and USCIS also.
I hope DOS and USCIS give positive feedback to recapture visas.
0 comments:
Post a Comment