Imigrait
07-11 05:28 PM
Can you provide the source of this info? a link or something?
Here's your link
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
Look at Section E. I have also pasted the text below.
E. EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
Based on the informaiton available, it was been determined that the demand from �All Other Countries� for Second preference numbers, plus the amount of numbers available under China and India Second preference per-country limit, would be insufficient to utilize all available numbers under the annual limit for this category. Therefore, pursuant to Section 202(a)(5) of the Act, the unused numbers have been made available to China and India Second preference applicants. Since Section 203(e)(1) of the Act requires that such unused numbers be made available strictly in priority date order, the China and India applicants have been subject to the identical cut-off date. As there are more Employment Second preference applicants from India and the Indian applicants may have earlier priority dates, it is likely that Indian applicants will receive a larger portion of the available numbers than Chinese applicants.
It should be noted that the Employment Second preference category is "Current" for all countries except China and India. If at any point it appears that demand from �All Other Countries� would utilize all available numbers, then an adjustment would be made to the China/India cut-off date. Therefore, providing the unused numbers to China and India in no way disadvantages applicants from any other country, and helps to insure that the worldwide annual limit can be reached.
Here's your link
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4252.html
Look at Section E. I have also pasted the text below.
E. EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
Based on the informaiton available, it was been determined that the demand from �All Other Countries� for Second preference numbers, plus the amount of numbers available under China and India Second preference per-country limit, would be insufficient to utilize all available numbers under the annual limit for this category. Therefore, pursuant to Section 202(a)(5) of the Act, the unused numbers have been made available to China and India Second preference applicants. Since Section 203(e)(1) of the Act requires that such unused numbers be made available strictly in priority date order, the China and India applicants have been subject to the identical cut-off date. As there are more Employment Second preference applicants from India and the Indian applicants may have earlier priority dates, it is likely that Indian applicants will receive a larger portion of the available numbers than Chinese applicants.
It should be noted that the Employment Second preference category is "Current" for all countries except China and India. If at any point it appears that demand from �All Other Countries� would utilize all available numbers, then an adjustment would be made to the China/India cut-off date. Therefore, providing the unused numbers to China and India in no way disadvantages applicants from any other country, and helps to insure that the worldwide annual limit can be reached.
wallpaper Front During World War 1
ganguteli
03-09 11:32 PM
I like your idea.
Let us all blame IV core for not getting our greencard and having a crappy visa bulletin this month. :)
I contributed $5 in the high five campaign and I still do not have my labor cleared. I want to blame IV for that too. :)
Did you not see the FOIA action item by IV core?
Let us all blame IV core for not getting our greencard and having a crappy visa bulletin this month. :)
I contributed $5 in the high five campaign and I still do not have my labor cleared. I want to blame IV for that too. :)
Did you not see the FOIA action item by IV core?
frostrated
08-21 11:20 AM
I am NOT here illegally. I was told BY someone at USCIS when I submitted the first application that as long as I was submitting requested applications and the required fees, I was not considered an illegal alien. If that was the case, why has no one at USCIS ever told me that? They know where I live, who I live with and everything else they need to know, I have no secrets from them, but not once have I received a letter, phone call or anything else to request for me to leave. I guess those of you that are professionals or those who already have a green card, are better than people like myself who are considered blue collar. I don't receive a dime for what I do, room and board is it so therefore I am not taking away anything from Americans who were born in this country.
In 2003 when I arrived here, PASSPORTS WERE NOT REQUIRED. I had a birth certificate and valid driver's license, that is all customs asked for at the Toronto airport and that is all I gave them. IF passports were required, I would have gotten one, but since they were not, what was I to do? I am not from an overseas country and I have visited the US most of my life as a child and as an adult without any trouble and was never asked for a passport. All that changed in 2005 - not my fault.
I came here looking for some assistance but seem to have gotten a bunch of sarcastic comments that are really not helpful and weren't necessary.
It's funny how you make assumptions and you all are here for similar reasons and needed help at some point. As for not criticizing USCIS for doing their job right - I doubt you would say the same thing if you were my shoes. I do not appreciate the criticism or sarcasm, I thought this was supposed to be a place to get some help, I guess I was wrong.
I won't be back.
It is true that when you entered the country, passports were not required of Canadian citizens. But you overlook one aspect. Canadian citizens who are visitors to the United States need to leave at the end of 6 months. Any visitor who stays beyond six months is accuring illegal stay. If you came in 2005, either in late 2005 or early 2006 you started to accure illegal stay. This is not a fault of the USCIS, but yours in not finding out about the rule. Also, A visitor who intends to live, work or study in the U.S. may be permanently barred from the U.S. Please refer to Canadian Citizens • U.S. Consular Services in Canada (http://www.consular.canada.usembassy.gov/canadians.asp) for more details on your stay.
As for blaming the USCIS for not notifying you earlier, there are a plethora of applications pending before yours, so it will take time for them to look at your application. The additional forms that USCIS has asked you, were forms that you need to have sent when you applied your I-485. These were all suplments you would have found had you looked up the filing instructions. no I-485 can be approved without those forms. It has been law since the early 1990s when the law was made.
And, since you entered the country to marry your fiance, when that did not happen, you should have left and re-applied through another means. If the people you are looking after cannot afford to pay for your adjustment, and pay you only food and board, they are in fact breaking the law by hiring an illegal alien. Room and food is considered pay as far as USCIS is concerned.
In 2003 when I arrived here, PASSPORTS WERE NOT REQUIRED. I had a birth certificate and valid driver's license, that is all customs asked for at the Toronto airport and that is all I gave them. IF passports were required, I would have gotten one, but since they were not, what was I to do? I am not from an overseas country and I have visited the US most of my life as a child and as an adult without any trouble and was never asked for a passport. All that changed in 2005 - not my fault.
I came here looking for some assistance but seem to have gotten a bunch of sarcastic comments that are really not helpful and weren't necessary.
It's funny how you make assumptions and you all are here for similar reasons and needed help at some point. As for not criticizing USCIS for doing their job right - I doubt you would say the same thing if you were my shoes. I do not appreciate the criticism or sarcasm, I thought this was supposed to be a place to get some help, I guess I was wrong.
I won't be back.
It is true that when you entered the country, passports were not required of Canadian citizens. But you overlook one aspect. Canadian citizens who are visitors to the United States need to leave at the end of 6 months. Any visitor who stays beyond six months is accuring illegal stay. If you came in 2005, either in late 2005 or early 2006 you started to accure illegal stay. This is not a fault of the USCIS, but yours in not finding out about the rule. Also, A visitor who intends to live, work or study in the U.S. may be permanently barred from the U.S. Please refer to Canadian Citizens • U.S. Consular Services in Canada (http://www.consular.canada.usembassy.gov/canadians.asp) for more details on your stay.
As for blaming the USCIS for not notifying you earlier, there are a plethora of applications pending before yours, so it will take time for them to look at your application. The additional forms that USCIS has asked you, were forms that you need to have sent when you applied your I-485. These were all suplments you would have found had you looked up the filing instructions. no I-485 can be approved without those forms. It has been law since the early 1990s when the law was made.
And, since you entered the country to marry your fiance, when that did not happen, you should have left and re-applied through another means. If the people you are looking after cannot afford to pay for your adjustment, and pay you only food and board, they are in fact breaking the law by hiring an illegal alien. Room and food is considered pay as far as USCIS is concerned.
2011 Russian soldiers during World
JazzByTheBay
09-13 02:01 PM
http://morejazzbythebay.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/sanjoserallybnr4-2.jpg
SAN JOSE WAS THE BEGINNING, DC WILL BE A HUGE MILESTONE!
(San Jose rally pictures and videos, and Aman's messages from Milpitas, CA meeting can be found at http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com (http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com/))
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/20/99/22609920.jpg
cheers, and see ya'll in DC!
jazz
Easy decision: JUST COME GUYS!!!!
SAN JOSE WAS THE BEGINNING, DC WILL BE A HUGE MILESTONE!
(San Jose rally pictures and videos, and Aman's messages from Milpitas, CA meeting can be found at http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com (http://morejazzbythebay.wordpress.com/))
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/20/99/22609920.jpg
cheers, and see ya'll in DC!
jazz
Easy decision: JUST COME GUYS!!!!
more...
indyanguy
02-20 06:49 PM
If possible, please change it without any delay? EB3 is only able to cross past May 2001 for 3 times in last 3 years where EB2 are enjoying GC most of time. No point in playing wait game with EB3 India. Otherwise, you will wait for-ever. :)
To interfile, do we need to start the PERM/140 process again for a different EB2 position? Do we port the date from EB3 to EB2 while we apply for EB2 140?
Is this a straight forward process? What happens if interfiling is denied?
To interfile, do we need to start the PERM/140 process again for a different EB2 position? Do we port the date from EB3 to EB2 while we apply for EB2 140?
Is this a straight forward process? What happens if interfiling is denied?
akred
01-28 12:50 AM
From what I've read, the country caps were originally intended to soothe fears of uncontrolled immigration from the 3rd world. Similarly, the diversity lottery was supposed to increase immigration from Europe.
Both schemes are essentially restrictionist ploys to maintain a white America.
Both schemes are essentially restrictionist ploys to maintain a white America.
more...
amitjoey
11-11 01:49 PM
YES! We can, we should go to court. But time and again, IV Core (I am not one) has evaluated individual issues and told us that we dont have a strong enough case to justify the money involved. If and only IF we have a strong case, we can get media attention, we should spend the money. Otherwise the money is well spent lobbying. We are talking 50k and more.
Do you know how effort intensive taking USCIS to court is. We are talking about complete dedication of our time and resources. We are talking about 10-15 committed IV members spending a minimum of 15 hours every week researching, doing paper work with the lawyers. Also, we would need volunteers to come forward give interviews, appear in court (if need be), travel and stay out of home.
We have trouble getting members go to their local lawmakers office to petition and lobby. Should we not first prove to IV Core that we can come up with 15 committed members and atleast $10k.
I do not want to discourage anyone in going this route, infact I want us to sue USCIS, BUT before we do that we should all first go and meet our lawmakers. Get some attention to the issue, maybe we submit this letter to their offices while we are there.
Do you know how effort intensive taking USCIS to court is. We are talking about complete dedication of our time and resources. We are talking about 10-15 committed IV members spending a minimum of 15 hours every week researching, doing paper work with the lawyers. Also, we would need volunteers to come forward give interviews, appear in court (if need be), travel and stay out of home.
We have trouble getting members go to their local lawmakers office to petition and lobby. Should we not first prove to IV Core that we can come up with 15 committed members and atleast $10k.
I do not want to discourage anyone in going this route, infact I want us to sue USCIS, BUT before we do that we should all first go and meet our lawmakers. Get some attention to the issue, maybe we submit this letter to their offices while we are there.
2010 brutal Japanese soldiers
unitednations
12-22 02:34 PM
this is our history...
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
Pretty confusing situation. Don't know why you even put in an experience letter from a company which doesn't have anything to do with the petition.
I am aware of a couple of cases where uscis did deny on such issues (g-325a not matching up with h-1b approvals, etc.). However, affidavits and such to say it was an honest mistake took care of the issue.
You might be able to appreciate this story:
I worked on an ability to pay case for a company in ohio. Person got approved and was then waiting for 485 approval.
He contacts me many months later and tells me that he got this rfe. The jest of the rfe was:
You claim to have never filed a 485 adjustment of status application. However; our search of records show that you filed a 485 on xxx date in xx office as a marriage base applicant. It appears that you are not eligible for a waiver of the interview requirement for adjustment of status.
Now; i truly believe that his current wife (from india) never knew about this marriage (his family and friends didn't know either). he tried to blame it on his lawyer that they never asked him and they just defaulted that he never filed for a 485. Pretty weak excuse. However; they responded to the 485 that everything was in such a rush to file the 485 that he didn't have a chance to look it all over and it was an honest mistake. He didn't get called for an interview and they approved his case.
Now; if the record of his marriage base application had shown that he was caught in fraudulent marriage; he never got divorced and re-married or there was something that went wrong with his earlier case then it may have been a different story. However; since nothing was wrong with that application; the officer let him off the hook because it was an honest mistake.
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
Pretty confusing situation. Don't know why you even put in an experience letter from a company which doesn't have anything to do with the petition.
I am aware of a couple of cases where uscis did deny on such issues (g-325a not matching up with h-1b approvals, etc.). However, affidavits and such to say it was an honest mistake took care of the issue.
You might be able to appreciate this story:
I worked on an ability to pay case for a company in ohio. Person got approved and was then waiting for 485 approval.
He contacts me many months later and tells me that he got this rfe. The jest of the rfe was:
You claim to have never filed a 485 adjustment of status application. However; our search of records show that you filed a 485 on xxx date in xx office as a marriage base applicant. It appears that you are not eligible for a waiver of the interview requirement for adjustment of status.
Now; i truly believe that his current wife (from india) never knew about this marriage (his family and friends didn't know either). he tried to blame it on his lawyer that they never asked him and they just defaulted that he never filed for a 485. Pretty weak excuse. However; they responded to the 485 that everything was in such a rush to file the 485 that he didn't have a chance to look it all over and it was an honest mistake. He didn't get called for an interview and they approved his case.
Now; if the record of his marriage base application had shown that he was caught in fraudulent marriage; he never got divorced and re-married or there was something that went wrong with his earlier case then it may have been a different story. However; since nothing was wrong with that application; the officer let him off the hook because it was an honest mistake.
more...
justAnotherFile
07-24 01:23 PM
The law 245 (c) clearly states that the status of the applicant may be adjusted to that of permanent resident only if the visa number is available.
Nowhere does it state that the application for adjustment of status can be accepted only if visa number is available.
This must lie within the discretion of the USCIS but will need some lobbying because of no precedent of invoking it.
This is similar to the H1-B issue, previously apllication were accepted only on Oct 1, if the current year visas ran out. The USCIS made a policy change to accept applications for the next year starting April 1 in order to alleviate some problems regarding status etc.
Those of who who are inetersted in pursuing this furhter should write a 2-3 line question to USCIS in the below link. If there are enough questions on the same issue we may elicit a response.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask
we can plan further action later.
Nowhere does it state that the application for adjustment of status can be accepted only if visa number is available.
This must lie within the discretion of the USCIS but will need some lobbying because of no precedent of invoking it.
This is similar to the H1-B issue, previously apllication were accepted only on Oct 1, if the current year visas ran out. The USCIS made a policy change to accept applications for the next year starting April 1 in order to alleviate some problems regarding status etc.
Those of who who are inetersted in pursuing this furhter should write a 2-3 line question to USCIS in the below link. If there are enough questions on the same issue we may elicit a response.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask
we can plan further action later.
hair second world war soldiers
ItIsNotFunny
09-19 09:46 AM
Legal Immigrants Rally
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...76080420003555
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...20059427058009
http://picasaweb.google.com/raghumoh...lyWashingtonDC
Happy viewing, Foward to your friends n family
--
Regards,
Raghu
I wish atleast one of the links could work.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...76080420003555
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...20059427058009
http://picasaweb.google.com/raghumoh...lyWashingtonDC
Happy viewing, Foward to your friends n family
--
Regards,
Raghu
I wish atleast one of the links could work.
more...
Imm_Exploited
03-15 09:52 PM
I wonder who wants to take credit for the elimination of the labor substitution provision that has been (mis) used by the immigrant community as well as some employers. Labor substitution was one of the reasons for the back and forth of priority dates movement. Thankfully, effective July 2007, the labor substitution rule has been eliminated.
The immigration system was more of screwed-up one till March 2005 (not that it is no more a screwed-up system now) when the PERM was introduced. With the introduction of PERM, the priority dates were common for EB labor certification nation-wide. Prior to March 2005, we had a screwed-up policy of state-wise labor-certification backlog where those who filed from states like Maine or Nebraska had an advantage of getting not only the approval of labor certification (form ETA 750-A/750-B or ETA 9089) faster but also having the Green Card in hand much sooner than those who filed from other states.
Though the introduction of PERM, removal of labor-substitution, and the 180-day rule for name check have noteworthy and life-saving benefits for immigrants, there needs to be more transparency from DOS/USCIS on how the EB GCs are allotted or wasted unused.
IE
The immigration system was more of screwed-up one till March 2005 (not that it is no more a screwed-up system now) when the PERM was introduced. With the introduction of PERM, the priority dates were common for EB labor certification nation-wide. Prior to March 2005, we had a screwed-up policy of state-wise labor-certification backlog where those who filed from states like Maine or Nebraska had an advantage of getting not only the approval of labor certification (form ETA 750-A/750-B or ETA 9089) faster but also having the Green Card in hand much sooner than those who filed from other states.
Though the introduction of PERM, removal of labor-substitution, and the 180-day rule for name check have noteworthy and life-saving benefits for immigrants, there needs to be more transparency from DOS/USCIS on how the EB GCs are allotted or wasted unused.
IE
hot second world war.
feedfront
10-13 01:57 PM
feedfront, the receipt date on my I-485 receipt notice is October 5, 2007.
My attorney had inquired with USCIS but hasn't received any response. As I mentioned earlier neither a SR, senator/congressman inquiry has helped!
I'd also send an email to NSC but got an generic message.
How can I write to USCIS director?
thank you!
thecipher5
Here is the link to a post by 'mchatrvd ' to contact director..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/1599351-august-2010-approvals-tracker-58.html#post1982324
My attorney had inquired with USCIS but hasn't received any response. As I mentioned earlier neither a SR, senator/congressman inquiry has helped!
I'd also send an email to NSC but got an generic message.
How can I write to USCIS director?
thank you!
thecipher5
Here is the link to a post by 'mchatrvd ' to contact director..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/1599351-august-2010-approvals-tracker-58.html#post1982324
more...
house Second World War: Part 1
fcres
07-24 05:08 PM
Good for you!
How he is going to send means waiting till RN or send without RN.
Please confirm.
I have RN, i'm a June filer
How he is going to send means waiting till RN or send without RN.
Please confirm.
I have RN, i'm a June filer
tattoo end of Second World War.
leoindiano
03-17 01:05 PM
As i said, eb3 to eb2 porting is not easy....Unless, there is very strong case, like applicant having US Masters degree but employer filed in EB3 for reasons they only know....
Read this story...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13810
Read this story...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13810
more...
pictures Most German soldiers may have
nandakumar
11-21 02:30 AM
I also got a letter with same information.
Today I got the second letter from USCIS regarding this request. The letter says they accepted the request and put in the pending que.
Also the letter says, "your request is deemed to constitute an agreement to pay any fees that may be chargeable up to $25.00" and continues and finally it says "most requests do not require any fees and if fees in excess of $25.00 are required, we will notify you beforehand"
Jusy wondering any one got this reply..
Today I got the second letter from USCIS regarding this request. The letter says they accepted the request and put in the pending que.
Also the letter says, "your request is deemed to constitute an agreement to pay any fees that may be chargeable up to $25.00" and continues and finally it says "most requests do not require any fees and if fees in excess of $25.00 are required, we will notify you beforehand"
Jusy wondering any one got this reply..
dresses Second world war: A captured
Rajeev
01-17 02:59 PM
I just signed up for a monthly contribution of $20.
Also contributed $100 in Dec 06.
Also contributed $100 in Dec 06.
more...
makeup Home gt; Image Details. Goodbye
Madhuri
04-23 08:50 PM
as Always logiclife rocks.....so precise and neat. Core members like him is the ultimate reason I have full faith and confidence in IV leadership.
Its not like you are going to threaten to vote against them. YOU HAVE NO VOTING power for next 15 years.[/QUOTE]
Logic Life -- YOU ROCK MAN !![/QUOTE]
Its not like you are going to threaten to vote against them. YOU HAVE NO VOTING power for next 15 years.[/QUOTE]
Logic Life -- YOU ROCK MAN !![/QUOTE]
girlfriend Second World War,
new_horizon
10-20 02:36 PM
I missed on some of the conversation here
- '92-'00 was a good economic time because of the dot com boom.
- the repubs were in charge of the house and senate, and they helped in part to frame/pass the policies during that time.
- the housing sector debacle started in the clinton era, when the dems pushed the fannie may & freddie mac to lower the lending standards to give loans to the people who couldn't afford it. though it sounded like a good objective they all knew that at one point it would boomerang.
- the dems did that for their own purposes:
1. to gain the support of the lower income/middle income population which they did.
2. to fatten their own wallets-they changed the compensation rules so that the more they loan out the more their compensation. the dem guy in charge of the loaning agencies earned 90 mil in 6 years.
3. the top two beneficiaries of contribution from fm/fm were guess who chris dodd & barck obama (barack got 130K in just 3 years). not to mention the favorable interest rates on their mortgage loans.
- the US has prospered so far because of its capitalistic philosophy. it has advanced innovation, and entrepreneurship, because innovators know they'll be compensated for their hardwork. barack recently claimed he want's to spread the wealth around which is a socialist philosophy...you've seen that in the communist countries (no growth, poverty, and low standards).
- barack has had no accomplishment at all...no executive decision made, no major legislation (bills) introduced or passed (let alone through bipartisan efforts). so all of a sudden to assume he's going to bring change is ridiculous. hillary would have made a better president of course the press decides/controls everything now.
- look at the huge spending plan he has (free giveaways to everybody)...to fund that he'll tax you and I (take away whatever money we've saved).
- he's ambiguous on everything...he changed his initial position on almost everything, and not just once (again according to the audience)
I don't think we need to go thru all this again. all i care now is my gc, and I don't think obama is for it. even if he says he's for it, you can't trust him. he'll change his position when it becomes unpopular.
again be rational in your thinking.
p.s with the limited time I had I wrote all this...so don't pounce on any gramatical errors (of course the dems like to do that).
- '92-'00 was a good economic time because of the dot com boom.
- the repubs were in charge of the house and senate, and they helped in part to frame/pass the policies during that time.
- the housing sector debacle started in the clinton era, when the dems pushed the fannie may & freddie mac to lower the lending standards to give loans to the people who couldn't afford it. though it sounded like a good objective they all knew that at one point it would boomerang.
- the dems did that for their own purposes:
1. to gain the support of the lower income/middle income population which they did.
2. to fatten their own wallets-they changed the compensation rules so that the more they loan out the more their compensation. the dem guy in charge of the loaning agencies earned 90 mil in 6 years.
3. the top two beneficiaries of contribution from fm/fm were guess who chris dodd & barck obama (barack got 130K in just 3 years). not to mention the favorable interest rates on their mortgage loans.
- the US has prospered so far because of its capitalistic philosophy. it has advanced innovation, and entrepreneurship, because innovators know they'll be compensated for their hardwork. barack recently claimed he want's to spread the wealth around which is a socialist philosophy...you've seen that in the communist countries (no growth, poverty, and low standards).
- barack has had no accomplishment at all...no executive decision made, no major legislation (bills) introduced or passed (let alone through bipartisan efforts). so all of a sudden to assume he's going to bring change is ridiculous. hillary would have made a better president of course the press decides/controls everything now.
- look at the huge spending plan he has (free giveaways to everybody)...to fund that he'll tax you and I (take away whatever money we've saved).
- he's ambiguous on everything...he changed his initial position on almost everything, and not just once (again according to the audience)
I don't think we need to go thru all this again. all i care now is my gc, and I don't think obama is for it. even if he says he's for it, you can't trust him. he'll change his position when it becomes unpopular.
again be rational in your thinking.
p.s with the limited time I had I wrote all this...so don't pounce on any gramatical errors (of course the dems like to do that).
hairstyles German soldiers in occupied
anilsal
12-26 03:50 PM
MasterCard is quite attractive with the new WorldPoints concept. A point for every dollar spent. When you have sufficient points, you can get air tickets etc.
An issue with Discover card is that it is not widely accepted outside the US - not in Canada or in Europe (the merchant will have to call some number to get authorization). Amex is usable worldwide.
Many merchants do not accept either Amex or Disc in the US.
An issue with Discover card is that it is not widely accepted outside the US - not in Canada or in Europe (the merchant will have to call some number to get authorization). Amex is usable worldwide.
Many merchants do not accept either Amex or Disc in the US.
pappu
11-20 01:09 PM
All pls PM each other and exchange phone numbers and emails so that you can start building your local IV community. Once you have contacted each other, you can start the action items for state chapters.
rajuram
11-11 10:43 AM
WE SHOULD try to MARKET HOW the high tech IMMIGRANTS CAN HELP THE HOUSING MESS BY BUYING HOUSES.
Did anyone listen to NPR on this topic recently? Looks like people are open to the idea, but some one has to give more visibility to this topic. Can IV do it.....
Did anyone listen to NPR on this topic recently? Looks like people are open to the idea, but some one has to give more visibility to this topic. Can IV do it.....
0 comments:
Post a Comment