rongha_2000
01-03 11:47 PM
oh thats the price YOU are willing to bear? How? By staying comfy in the US? Its easy to say dude when you are 7000 miles away. If you (and i know you are not) or anyone in your family is in the military, you would not dare to make such a stupid statement.
This whole thread is ridiculous and should be deleted. It has no place in immigration forums.
We are a sovereign nation and are capable of defending ourselves, whatever the cost may be. Yes, it will set us back economically and we may lose thousands of lives, but that is the price we must be willing to bear.
This whole thread is ridiculous and should be deleted. It has no place in immigration forums.
We are a sovereign nation and are capable of defending ourselves, whatever the cost may be. Yes, it will set us back economically and we may lose thousands of lives, but that is the price we must be willing to bear.
wallpaper The Chicago Code Publicity
Macaca
09-27 12:06 PM
In defense of lobbying (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/in-defense-of-l.html) This country�s Founders actually set up a system to encourage the petitioning of government. And yes, like it or not, that means lobbyists have the same claims to the First Amendment as our free press does By Ross K. Baker | USA Today, sep 27, 2007
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
There was a moment in one of the recent Democratic debates in which former senator John Edwards practically accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of being in league with the devil. For some time, he had been attacking her for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Now, using the occasion of a just-passed lobbying reform bill awaiting the signature of a skeptical president, he exceeded even his previous needling of her by suggesting guilt-by-association. Turning to the audience, he charged that lobbyists, such as those who contribute to Clinton, "rig the system against all of you (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html?_r=1&ex=1187841600&en=a9c739db3da26fdf&ei=5070&oref=slogin)."
Edwards' accusations deftly played into a belief common even among well-educated Americans that lobbying, if not actually illegal, is a blot on American politics. The problem with this belief is that it is misinformed.
It might come as a surprise to most people that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602251.html) under the hallowed First Amendment. After the Founding Fathers cast the cloak of protection over freedom of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble, they added a category that could not be infringed upon by the federal government: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)."
Few contemporary efforts to influence government action come by way of a formal petition. But the idea of giving citizens access to government was seen by the writers of the Constitution as something worth safeguarding. And it is, indeed, worth safeguarding because every group in America, at one time or another, has got a gripe and turns to Congress or the federal bureaucracy.
Groups engaged in activities that might seem wholly unconnected with politics, such as the American Automobile Association (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_H.htm) (the folks who get your car started on cold mornings), maintain a presence in Washington to monitor what goes on in Congress. When lawmakers and congressional staffers return from their summer recess, the army of lobbyists storms Washington alongside them.
Religious and military organizations, despite the apolitical nature of our armed forces and the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, stick very close to Congress. So close are the Methodists (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=gpYbdG8nTTbstJWZbHF4nQ%3d%3d&longitude=UTH%2fxgxU3NJ%2fZzEipoIpSw%3d%3d&name=General%20Board%2dGlbl%20Ministries&country=US&address=100%20Maryland%20Ave%20NE%20%23%20315&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d548%2d4002&spurl=0&&q=The%20United%20Methodist%20General%20Board%20of% 20Church%20and%20Society&qc=%28All%29%20Places%20Of%20Worship) and the Reserve Officers Association (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=2jypmtPMGHqb5z8DqMKpow%3d%3d&longitude=CIpOYIVGteZ%2bBzAf6jdV1Q%3d%3d&name=Reserve%20Officers%20Assn%20of%20US&country=US&address=101%20Constitution%20Ave%20NE&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d479%2d2221&spurl=0&&q=Reserve%20Officers%20Association&qc=Associations) that their Washington offices literally overlook the Senate office buildings.
To be sure, the vast bulk of the roughly 35,000 lobbyists in town represent businesses and industries. Nonetheless, as citizens of a commercial republic, should this really surprise us?
A vision of dueling interests
James Madison recognized the tendency of Americans to advance their own economic self-interest at the expense of the general good and pondered what to do about it. He dismissed (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm) the possibility of banning these "factions," arguing that they are a byproduct of our freedom.
His solution was just to allow them to multiply and, as the country expanded, no single interest would dominate. Free to struggle for influence, they would checkmate each other.
What Madison had not reckoned on was the vast expansion in the scope of activities of the federal government over the next 200 years.
As the government expanded, it has affected the lives and livelihoods of more people. They, in turn, want to ensure that government action does not harm them. Even better, they look to an expansive government to benefit them. So if the federal government gets into the business of building dams, they want to supply the cement. If Washington decides to prop up farm prices with subsidies, as it first did in the 1930s (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html), you want to make sure your commodity gets its share.
People of the revolutionary generation probably imagined that individuals would make their way to Washington to personally make their case for government help. They could not have imagined the hordes of surrogates, many of them receiving princely sums, who would take up residence in the nation's capital and subsist on pressing the cases of others. The idea that a professional advocate such as Jack Abramoff would be corruptly influencing the federal government would have been altogether inconceivable to James Madison.
The good with the bad
The defect in Madison's architecture is not that interest groups would proliferate, but that there would be such an imbalance between those seeking to get or maintain private gain and those advocating for the needs of humbler people. There are, of course, multitudes of lobbyists who advocate the needs of the handicapped, the elderly and endangered species, but they are often out-gunned by trade associations and industry lobbyists.
The defeat in the House of the recent effort to require U.S. automakers to boost the fuel economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079816/) of their cars is eloquent testimony to the clout of business. On the other hand, the high rollers who pushed for the elimination of the inheritance tax (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273376_estatewash09.html) received a stinging rebuke when the repeal that they favored was defeated in the Senate. The big boys don't always get what they want, especially when the focus of the media puts the issue out in the open.
There are in lobbying, as in other enterprises, noble and degraded examples. So you have the Children's Defense Fund pushing for an expansion (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/childhealth/) of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan and a smug and arrogant Abramoff manipulating the Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-tribes-giving_x.htm) on behalf of his well-heeled clients.
Both are lobbying. Even so, it would be as unfair to assume that all lobbyists are like Jack Abramoff as it would be to liken all physicians to Jack Kevorkian.
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
There was a moment in one of the recent Democratic debates in which former senator John Edwards practically accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of being in league with the devil. For some time, he had been attacking her for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Now, using the occasion of a just-passed lobbying reform bill awaiting the signature of a skeptical president, he exceeded even his previous needling of her by suggesting guilt-by-association. Turning to the audience, he charged that lobbyists, such as those who contribute to Clinton, "rig the system against all of you (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html?_r=1&ex=1187841600&en=a9c739db3da26fdf&ei=5070&oref=slogin)."
Edwards' accusations deftly played into a belief common even among well-educated Americans that lobbying, if not actually illegal, is a blot on American politics. The problem with this belief is that it is misinformed.
It might come as a surprise to most people that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602251.html) under the hallowed First Amendment. After the Founding Fathers cast the cloak of protection over freedom of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble, they added a category that could not be infringed upon by the federal government: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)."
Few contemporary efforts to influence government action come by way of a formal petition. But the idea of giving citizens access to government was seen by the writers of the Constitution as something worth safeguarding. And it is, indeed, worth safeguarding because every group in America, at one time or another, has got a gripe and turns to Congress or the federal bureaucracy.
Groups engaged in activities that might seem wholly unconnected with politics, such as the American Automobile Association (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_H.htm) (the folks who get your car started on cold mornings), maintain a presence in Washington to monitor what goes on in Congress. When lawmakers and congressional staffers return from their summer recess, the army of lobbyists storms Washington alongside them.
Religious and military organizations, despite the apolitical nature of our armed forces and the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, stick very close to Congress. So close are the Methodists (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=gpYbdG8nTTbstJWZbHF4nQ%3d%3d&longitude=UTH%2fxgxU3NJ%2fZzEipoIpSw%3d%3d&name=General%20Board%2dGlbl%20Ministries&country=US&address=100%20Maryland%20Ave%20NE%20%23%20315&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d548%2d4002&spurl=0&&q=The%20United%20Methodist%20General%20Board%20of% 20Church%20and%20Society&qc=%28All%29%20Places%20Of%20Worship) and the Reserve Officers Association (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=2jypmtPMGHqb5z8DqMKpow%3d%3d&longitude=CIpOYIVGteZ%2bBzAf6jdV1Q%3d%3d&name=Reserve%20Officers%20Assn%20of%20US&country=US&address=101%20Constitution%20Ave%20NE&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d479%2d2221&spurl=0&&q=Reserve%20Officers%20Association&qc=Associations) that their Washington offices literally overlook the Senate office buildings.
To be sure, the vast bulk of the roughly 35,000 lobbyists in town represent businesses and industries. Nonetheless, as citizens of a commercial republic, should this really surprise us?
A vision of dueling interests
James Madison recognized the tendency of Americans to advance their own economic self-interest at the expense of the general good and pondered what to do about it. He dismissed (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm) the possibility of banning these "factions," arguing that they are a byproduct of our freedom.
His solution was just to allow them to multiply and, as the country expanded, no single interest would dominate. Free to struggle for influence, they would checkmate each other.
What Madison had not reckoned on was the vast expansion in the scope of activities of the federal government over the next 200 years.
As the government expanded, it has affected the lives and livelihoods of more people. They, in turn, want to ensure that government action does not harm them. Even better, they look to an expansive government to benefit them. So if the federal government gets into the business of building dams, they want to supply the cement. If Washington decides to prop up farm prices with subsidies, as it first did in the 1930s (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html), you want to make sure your commodity gets its share.
People of the revolutionary generation probably imagined that individuals would make their way to Washington to personally make their case for government help. They could not have imagined the hordes of surrogates, many of them receiving princely sums, who would take up residence in the nation's capital and subsist on pressing the cases of others. The idea that a professional advocate such as Jack Abramoff would be corruptly influencing the federal government would have been altogether inconceivable to James Madison.
The good with the bad
The defect in Madison's architecture is not that interest groups would proliferate, but that there would be such an imbalance between those seeking to get or maintain private gain and those advocating for the needs of humbler people. There are, of course, multitudes of lobbyists who advocate the needs of the handicapped, the elderly and endangered species, but they are often out-gunned by trade associations and industry lobbyists.
The defeat in the House of the recent effort to require U.S. automakers to boost the fuel economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079816/) of their cars is eloquent testimony to the clout of business. On the other hand, the high rollers who pushed for the elimination of the inheritance tax (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273376_estatewash09.html) received a stinging rebuke when the repeal that they favored was defeated in the Senate. The big boys don't always get what they want, especially when the focus of the media puts the issue out in the open.
There are in lobbying, as in other enterprises, noble and degraded examples. So you have the Children's Defense Fund pushing for an expansion (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/childhealth/) of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan and a smug and arrogant Abramoff manipulating the Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-tribes-giving_x.htm) on behalf of his well-heeled clients.
Both are lobbying. Even so, it would be as unfair to assume that all lobbyists are like Jack Abramoff as it would be to liken all physicians to Jack Kevorkian.
unitednations
08-02 11:57 AM
I am on H1 since 1999 with same employer except for a long interval of 16 months. I filed my labor in April 2001 (assuming 245(i) will cover me). I was not on payroll during Aug 03 to Dec 04. So my W2 for 2003 is 33% less than LCA and no W2 for 2004. I last entered US in Sept. 03
I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
Thanks a lot
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
I filed my I-485 in June 07. I-140 was approved under PP.
My question is that what are my chances of being approved?
Also is there anything I can do now to rectify it?
I have no issues with the employer. He is willing to help me out in any way.
Thanks a lot
As long as you hadn't overstayed i-94 card by more then six months before you left and re-entered then you still have 245i protection in case uscis should dig further. Just pay the $1,000 penalty when they ask and you will get approved.
2011 Jason Clarke Joins #39;The Great
anand2007
07-07 11:42 PM
I wish you a good luck and hope that your issue will be solved. contact good lawyer soon.
more...
gomirage
06-07 10:21 PM
For me its a very simple thing, print that damn thing of plastic and I will buy.
lol, can't blame you.
lol, can't blame you.
chintu25
08-06 09:28 AM
COULD NOT RESIST THIS IS A FUNNY ONE FROM INDIA
There are hindi words used ......
Laloo Prasad sent his Bio Data - to apply for a post in Microsoft Corporation, USA.
A few days later he got this reply:
Dear Mr. Laloo Prasad,
You do not meet our requirements. Please do not send any further correspondence. No phone call shall be entertained.
Thanks
Bill Gates.
Laloo Prasad jumped with joy on receiving this reply.
He arranged a press conference :
"Bhaiyon aur Behno, aap ko jaan kar khushi hogee ki hum ko Amereeca mein naukri mil gayee hai."
Everyone was delighted.
Laloo prasad continued...... "Ab hum aap sab ko apnaa appointment Letter padkar sunaongaa ? par letter angreeze main hai - isliyen saath-saath Hindi main translate bhee karoonga.
Dear Mr. Laloo Prasad ----- Pyare Laloo prasad bhaiyya
You do not meet ----- aap to miltay hee naheen ho
our requirement ----- humko to zaroorat hai
Please do not send any furthur correspondance ----- ab Letter vetter bhejne ka kaouno zaroorat nahee.
No phone call ----- phoonwa ka bhee zaroorat nahee hai
shall be entertained ----- bahut khaatir kee jayegi.
Thanks ----- aapkaa bahut bahut dhanyavad.
Bill Gates. ---- Tohar Bilva.
There are hindi words used ......
Laloo Prasad sent his Bio Data - to apply for a post in Microsoft Corporation, USA.
A few days later he got this reply:
Dear Mr. Laloo Prasad,
You do not meet our requirements. Please do not send any further correspondence. No phone call shall be entertained.
Thanks
Bill Gates.
Laloo Prasad jumped with joy on receiving this reply.
He arranged a press conference :
"Bhaiyon aur Behno, aap ko jaan kar khushi hogee ki hum ko Amereeca mein naukri mil gayee hai."
Everyone was delighted.
Laloo prasad continued...... "Ab hum aap sab ko apnaa appointment Letter padkar sunaongaa ? par letter angreeze main hai - isliyen saath-saath Hindi main translate bhee karoonga.
Dear Mr. Laloo Prasad ----- Pyare Laloo prasad bhaiyya
You do not meet ----- aap to miltay hee naheen ho
our requirement ----- humko to zaroorat hai
Please do not send any furthur correspondance ----- ab Letter vetter bhejne ka kaouno zaroorat nahee.
No phone call ----- phoonwa ka bhee zaroorat nahee hai
shall be entertained ----- bahut khaatir kee jayegi.
Thanks ----- aapkaa bahut bahut dhanyavad.
Bill Gates. ---- Tohar Bilva.
more...
lfwf
08-05 02:40 PM
Agree. Like labor subsitution scandal/abuse, you should have a documenterly evidence to go after this scam (creating duplicate EB2 job just to cut-short the line). If it is a USCIS rule, they may ripoff this ( like labor sub.). It is long way to go. The nut shell-- as long us GC is in high demand, people abuse the system. DOL, USCIS, knows this. Thatswhy DOL is auditing most EB2 labor certification. In my view, who ever filed EB2 between 2000 to 2004 (when EB3 was current) are true-EB2. After 2005, most of the EB2 filings are cut-short the EB3 que. Most of the cases not based on actual MINIMUM requirements for the job. Everyone knows this..
Please stop with this. this is truly offensive. Many of us happen to be truly qualified beyond your clarly limited imagination. Not all of us are in IT, not all of us work in body shops and NOT all of us deal with fraud in our lives. If a few do, then go chase the, and stop tarring us all with the same brush. This is really akin to my saying (and I'm not saying it) that all EB3 folks are just IT diploma holders working for body shops and the whole category is just a fruad. How does the tarring feel now?
Please stop with this. this is truly offensive. Many of us happen to be truly qualified beyond your clarly limited imagination. Not all of us are in IT, not all of us work in body shops and NOT all of us deal with fraud in our lives. If a few do, then go chase the, and stop tarring us all with the same brush. This is really akin to my saying (and I'm not saying it) that all EB3 folks are just IT diploma holders working for body shops and the whole category is just a fruad. How does the tarring feel now?
2010 The Chicago Code
Refugee_New
01-06 02:41 PM
Yes, they definitely have...Hamas should stop using school kids as human shield before complaining. Heres link for you - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elyXQ6g-TJs
You just go and see this video. Sent by some tamil media.
http://kalaiy.blogspot.com/2009/01/you-tube.html
You just go and see this video. Sent by some tamil media.
http://kalaiy.blogspot.com/2009/01/you-tube.html
more...
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
hair The Chicago Code
unitednations
07-10 12:50 PM
Such mistakes can be corrected by CBP defered inspectors but they will only correct typo errors by the CBP at POE . For other mistakes u need to file Form I 102 with USCIS.
That's correct spelling mistakes, etc., can be corrected if you go back to the port of entry who generated the I-94 card.
I 102 is more for replacement of an I-94 card.
However; POE entering you on a wrong companies h-1b isn't so easily correctible after the fact.
In situations such as this; it is better to go back out and re-enter with proper company h-1b.
In May and June before people were getting ready to file the 485's a lot of these issues were found in reviewing their files/history. Many people had their visas expired and they didn't want to go for visa stamping. What many people did was go to Canada and use auto revalidation and then re-enter USA on the proper companies h-1b and/or get a new I-94 card and also reset the 245k benefit since it is measured from the date of last entry to filing the 485.
That's correct spelling mistakes, etc., can be corrected if you go back to the port of entry who generated the I-94 card.
I 102 is more for replacement of an I-94 card.
However; POE entering you on a wrong companies h-1b isn't so easily correctible after the fact.
In situations such as this; it is better to go back out and re-enter with proper company h-1b.
In May and June before people were getting ready to file the 485's a lot of these issues were found in reviewing their files/history. Many people had their visas expired and they didn't want to go for visa stamping. What many people did was go to Canada and use auto revalidation and then re-enter USA on the proper companies h-1b and/or get a new I-94 card and also reset the 245k benefit since it is measured from the date of last entry to filing the 485.
more...
crystal
08-03 06:09 PM
Search the threads there is a link , if you entered to US in less than a year before filing I-485 they wil send a copy of G-325a to Consulate. If they dont get response in 6 months they move forward, they dont wait for the response. this does not cause backlog as far as i know. They keep consulate visa interview forms for an year , thats what i read in the link
Ok . here is the link
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cis-sop-aos/7-3-3.html It is 60 days ( not 6 months which i said above)
Do you really think they would send the G-325a to the consulate? Do the consulates keep all the records? For how long? I heard from immigrationportal, somebody said they only send G-325a to the consulate if one applied a visa within one year prior to AOS application. Can anyone confirm this?
If they send everyone's G-325a form to the consulates, would that result in another backlog? Thanks.
Ok . here is the link
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cis-sop-aos/7-3-3.html It is 60 days ( not 6 months which i said above)
Do you really think they would send the G-325a to the consulate? Do the consulates keep all the records? For how long? I heard from immigrationportal, somebody said they only send G-325a to the consulate if one applied a visa within one year prior to AOS application. Can anyone confirm this?
If they send everyone's G-325a form to the consulates, would that result in another backlog? Thanks.
hot The Chicago Code
unitednations
03-25 04:05 AM
As a matter of fact, any one if trained properly can do any job..
So the requirement of basic education can be challenged for any position.. But Can CIS get in the way of running business decisions?? If any company (including consulting) wants to hire staff, shouldn't they have a say in who should be in their office?? If a staffing company policy is to only hire Post graduates, can CIS stop them? Isn't this too much intervention by government?
Another point is Why this intepretation is different for non-consulting companies? If Cisco can mandate an FTE on H1B to be Masters, how come a consultant working for same Cisco need to prove that the position requires Masters?? What they are doing is wrong.. If some litigation lawyer can find a racially motivated pattern, they will be in big trouble.. Just my thoughts...
That case was decided in 2000 after the h-1b had been filed; denied; appealed; though on layer of court and then finally decided by this court. This is why it is difficult to challenge USCIS; it takes years and years for it to weave though the system.
USCIS could have used this case many years ago; however, vermont service center didn't apply the principles of this case until 2007. Once; senators/congressmen started putting pressure on them to start getting tough.
Although they think there may be gaming of the system; they have to find a legal way to teach people a lessson. This case is what they can legally do to deny h-1b's.
So the requirement of basic education can be challenged for any position.. But Can CIS get in the way of running business decisions?? If any company (including consulting) wants to hire staff, shouldn't they have a say in who should be in their office?? If a staffing company policy is to only hire Post graduates, can CIS stop them? Isn't this too much intervention by government?
Another point is Why this intepretation is different for non-consulting companies? If Cisco can mandate an FTE on H1B to be Masters, how come a consultant working for same Cisco need to prove that the position requires Masters?? What they are doing is wrong.. If some litigation lawyer can find a racially motivated pattern, they will be in big trouble.. Just my thoughts...
That case was decided in 2000 after the h-1b had been filed; denied; appealed; though on layer of court and then finally decided by this court. This is why it is difficult to challenge USCIS; it takes years and years for it to weave though the system.
USCIS could have used this case many years ago; however, vermont service center didn't apply the principles of this case until 2007. Once; senators/congressmen started putting pressure on them to start getting tough.
Although they think there may be gaming of the system; they have to find a legal way to teach people a lessson. This case is what they can legally do to deny h-1b's.
more...
house Jason Clarke
Macaca
05-27 05:39 PM
As Indian companies grow in the U.S., outsourcing comes home (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/as-indian-companies-grow-in-the-us-outsourcing-comes-home/2011/05/17/AFZbrp7G_story.html) By Paul Glade | The Washington Post
Ray Capuana paces the rows of cubicles in a haggard high-rise a stone�s throw from Wall Street as his people hustle the phones and hope for a bonus check.
His employees are not bond traders, though. They are call center workers. Many are African Americans without college degrees. Some lack high school diplomas. They work for a Mumbai-based company called Aegis Communications.
India�s outsourcing giants � faced with rising wages at home � have looked for growth opportunities in the United States. But with Washington crimping visas for visiting Indian workers, some companies such as Aegis are slowly hiring workers in North America, where their largest corporate customers are based. In this evolution, outsourcing has come home.
Capuana, a manager for Aegis in New York, motivates this U.S. office with dress-down days and the prospect that workers could, one day, earn a stint training call center workers in Goa, India. One of his tasks is to staff 176 cubicles, where workers make or take calls for customers of prescription drug plans or Medicare contracts and enter and verify information. The pay runs $12 to $14 an hour, with bonus checks of up to $730 a month.
�Our recruitment model is simple,� says Capuana, who played Division III college football, wears rosary beads on his wrist and has a picture of Jesus above his desk. �I don�t care if you come from Park Avenue or the park bench. If you can do the job, we want you.�
Aegis, a subsidiary of India�s Essar Group, an energy, telecom and metals conglomerate, says it�s pioneering the next generation of outsourcing: putting the work close to its global customers. Its executives call the practice �near-sourcing,� �diverse shoring� and, sometimes, �cross-shoring.�
Madhu Vuppuluri, chief executive and dealmaker for the Americas division of Essar Group, remembers watching outsourcing grow in India in the late 1990s and early 2000s and thinking that the decline of U.S. call centers was overdone. He persuaded the billionaire Ruia brothers, Essar�s Indian owners, to let him make a counterintuitive bet: In 2000, he bid on the bankrupt assets of Telequestion, a 500-person call center in Arlington, Tex., for $2.5 million.
That led to other acquisitions in the United States and abroad. Today, Aegis employs 50,000 of Essar�s 70,000 employees on several continents. About 5,000 people work at nine U.S. call centers. Aegis, which is on the hunt for more acquisitions, has said it aims to triple its U.S. head count, to more than 15,000.
The strategy is based on the old-fashioned idea of being close to your customers. It�s one embraced by companies such as credit card giant American Express, insurer Humana and government agencies, which sometimes prefer on-shore call centers to handle customer service for sensitive life insurance, financial or health-care products.
�The customer is the king,� Vuppuluri said. �Wherever the customer wants the services to be, we can provide.�
Visitors on visas
At its U.S. sites, Aegis says, 90 percent or more of its workers are American. In that way, Aegis is an exception to the rule. Until now, India-based outsourcing companies have largely brought Indian workers into the United States using H-1B visas and L-1 visas and have been the heaviest users of those programs.
In India�s $60 billion software-exporting industry (which employs roughly 4 million people worldwide), Aegis is competing with companies such as Wipro, Tata Consultancy Services, Genpact, WNS and Infosys. Most are expanding their outsourcing work � from call centers to high-tech consulting and financial services � to the United States. In many cases, it�s a key part of the companies� growth strategy. But political and economic forces in this country and India complicate things.
Some say the visa practice has hurt U.S. jobs and wages. These new visa categories were created by the Immigration Act of 1990, allowing foreigners to work in the country for up to six years. The aim was to lure high-tech talent. Tech America, an industry trade group, says that the visas are crucial to American innovation, future competitiveness and job creation.
But they have been abused, too. In a study released in 2008, the government found fraud and technical violations on 20.7 percent of H-1B applications. Violations ranged �from document fraud to deliberate misstatements regarding job locations, wages paid and duties performed,� said Donald Neufeld, of the Department of Homeland Security, at a March hearing.
Immigration officials and the State Department have worked to crack down on the fraud.
�There will be, in any situation, an effort to go around the law,� said David T. Donahue, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services. �Our job is to catch the companies doing that.�
:DSome lawmakers are looking to curb the practice and to encourage the India-based outsourcing firms to follow Aegis�s model of hiring Americans at U.S. sites.:D Issuance of regular H-1B visas � 10,200 so far this year � is down 43 percent percent from 2010, according to federal data. Last year, the Obama administration added a roughly $2,000 fee per H-1B visa for large companies, which could be curbing applications.
In the past, if, say, BNY Mellon inked an IT contract with Infosys, Infosys would handle 70 percent of the work in India and send 30 percent of its project staff to the United States on temporary work visas. These Indian workers often live in ethnic enclaves on the outskirts of a city, work long hours and earn less than an American would for the same work.
Companies such as Tata Consultancy Services, Genpact and Infosys are the largest users of the H-1B visa program and have collectively brought as many as 30,000 workers into the country in a year on H-1B or other visas.
Critics of the visa programs, such as :DRonil Hira:D, a public policy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology, say the work arrangements can amount to indentured servitude. The workers are often paid �home-country wages� in America. �That�s as low as $8,000 a year� with housing allowances, he says. The employers own the visas � so the workers can�t bargain for wages, and if they lose their job they have to leave the country.
Hira said Indian workers still make up more than 90 percent of most outsourcing companies� U.S. head counts. He and other critics argue that many of these workers are not more highly skilled than their American counterparts but are simply willing to work for less. �It�s harming American workers,� he said. �It�s taking away their job opportunities, bringing down their wages and harming their working conditions.�
The companies that use the visa programs have faced opposition from U.S. labor unions as well as age-discrimination lawsuits from American tech workers alleging that they were passed over by the hiring practices.
At the same time, as high unemployment lingers and the economic recovery lags, India-based companies have seized on an opportunity to improve their image and expand their U.S. businesses by taking over companies and hiring more U.S. talent.
Ray Capuana paces the rows of cubicles in a haggard high-rise a stone�s throw from Wall Street as his people hustle the phones and hope for a bonus check.
His employees are not bond traders, though. They are call center workers. Many are African Americans without college degrees. Some lack high school diplomas. They work for a Mumbai-based company called Aegis Communications.
India�s outsourcing giants � faced with rising wages at home � have looked for growth opportunities in the United States. But with Washington crimping visas for visiting Indian workers, some companies such as Aegis are slowly hiring workers in North America, where their largest corporate customers are based. In this evolution, outsourcing has come home.
Capuana, a manager for Aegis in New York, motivates this U.S. office with dress-down days and the prospect that workers could, one day, earn a stint training call center workers in Goa, India. One of his tasks is to staff 176 cubicles, where workers make or take calls for customers of prescription drug plans or Medicare contracts and enter and verify information. The pay runs $12 to $14 an hour, with bonus checks of up to $730 a month.
�Our recruitment model is simple,� says Capuana, who played Division III college football, wears rosary beads on his wrist and has a picture of Jesus above his desk. �I don�t care if you come from Park Avenue or the park bench. If you can do the job, we want you.�
Aegis, a subsidiary of India�s Essar Group, an energy, telecom and metals conglomerate, says it�s pioneering the next generation of outsourcing: putting the work close to its global customers. Its executives call the practice �near-sourcing,� �diverse shoring� and, sometimes, �cross-shoring.�
Madhu Vuppuluri, chief executive and dealmaker for the Americas division of Essar Group, remembers watching outsourcing grow in India in the late 1990s and early 2000s and thinking that the decline of U.S. call centers was overdone. He persuaded the billionaire Ruia brothers, Essar�s Indian owners, to let him make a counterintuitive bet: In 2000, he bid on the bankrupt assets of Telequestion, a 500-person call center in Arlington, Tex., for $2.5 million.
That led to other acquisitions in the United States and abroad. Today, Aegis employs 50,000 of Essar�s 70,000 employees on several continents. About 5,000 people work at nine U.S. call centers. Aegis, which is on the hunt for more acquisitions, has said it aims to triple its U.S. head count, to more than 15,000.
The strategy is based on the old-fashioned idea of being close to your customers. It�s one embraced by companies such as credit card giant American Express, insurer Humana and government agencies, which sometimes prefer on-shore call centers to handle customer service for sensitive life insurance, financial or health-care products.
�The customer is the king,� Vuppuluri said. �Wherever the customer wants the services to be, we can provide.�
Visitors on visas
At its U.S. sites, Aegis says, 90 percent or more of its workers are American. In that way, Aegis is an exception to the rule. Until now, India-based outsourcing companies have largely brought Indian workers into the United States using H-1B visas and L-1 visas and have been the heaviest users of those programs.
In India�s $60 billion software-exporting industry (which employs roughly 4 million people worldwide), Aegis is competing with companies such as Wipro, Tata Consultancy Services, Genpact, WNS and Infosys. Most are expanding their outsourcing work � from call centers to high-tech consulting and financial services � to the United States. In many cases, it�s a key part of the companies� growth strategy. But political and economic forces in this country and India complicate things.
Some say the visa practice has hurt U.S. jobs and wages. These new visa categories were created by the Immigration Act of 1990, allowing foreigners to work in the country for up to six years. The aim was to lure high-tech talent. Tech America, an industry trade group, says that the visas are crucial to American innovation, future competitiveness and job creation.
But they have been abused, too. In a study released in 2008, the government found fraud and technical violations on 20.7 percent of H-1B applications. Violations ranged �from document fraud to deliberate misstatements regarding job locations, wages paid and duties performed,� said Donald Neufeld, of the Department of Homeland Security, at a March hearing.
Immigration officials and the State Department have worked to crack down on the fraud.
�There will be, in any situation, an effort to go around the law,� said David T. Donahue, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services. �Our job is to catch the companies doing that.�
:DSome lawmakers are looking to curb the practice and to encourage the India-based outsourcing firms to follow Aegis�s model of hiring Americans at U.S. sites.:D Issuance of regular H-1B visas � 10,200 so far this year � is down 43 percent percent from 2010, according to federal data. Last year, the Obama administration added a roughly $2,000 fee per H-1B visa for large companies, which could be curbing applications.
In the past, if, say, BNY Mellon inked an IT contract with Infosys, Infosys would handle 70 percent of the work in India and send 30 percent of its project staff to the United States on temporary work visas. These Indian workers often live in ethnic enclaves on the outskirts of a city, work long hours and earn less than an American would for the same work.
Companies such as Tata Consultancy Services, Genpact and Infosys are the largest users of the H-1B visa program and have collectively brought as many as 30,000 workers into the country in a year on H-1B or other visas.
Critics of the visa programs, such as :DRonil Hira:D, a public policy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology, say the work arrangements can amount to indentured servitude. The workers are often paid �home-country wages� in America. �That�s as low as $8,000 a year� with housing allowances, he says. The employers own the visas � so the workers can�t bargain for wages, and if they lose their job they have to leave the country.
Hira said Indian workers still make up more than 90 percent of most outsourcing companies� U.S. head counts. He and other critics argue that many of these workers are not more highly skilled than their American counterparts but are simply willing to work for less. �It�s harming American workers,� he said. �It�s taking away their job opportunities, bringing down their wages and harming their working conditions.�
The companies that use the visa programs have faced opposition from U.S. labor unions as well as age-discrimination lawsuits from American tech workers alleging that they were passed over by the hiring practices.
At the same time, as high unemployment lingers and the economic recovery lags, India-based companies have seized on an opportunity to improve their image and expand their U.S. businesses by taking over companies and hiring more U.S. talent.
tattoo The Chicago Code is the
manub
07-07 09:59 PM
Yes I called all senators from the state and also local representative.Only local representative responded and their office contacted uscis for my EAD.We didnot contact any body for my husband`s petition .we are planning to do so this week.It is at NSC.
more...
pictures Quotes from Jason Clarke and
Macaca
12-30 07:15 PM
Binayak Sen: India's war on a man of peace
A life term for Binayak Sen under a law used by the British against Gandhi has shocked my country (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/28/binayak-sen-india-british-gandhi) By Kalpana Sharma | The Guardian
More than 150 years ago, the British introduced a law in India designed to check rebellious natives. In 2010 this law has been used by an independent India to check activists who question government policy.
Section 124A of the Indian penal code was introduced in 1870 by the British to deal with sedition. It was later used to convict Mahatma Gandhi. In his statement during the hearing on 23 March 1922, Gandhi said, "The section under which Mr Banker [a colleague in non-violence] and I are charged is one under which mere promotion of disaffection is a crime. I have studied some of the cases tried under it, and I know that some of the most loved of India's patriots have been convicted under it. I consider it a privilege, therefore, to be charged under that section � I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected toward a government which in its totality has done more harm to India than any previous system."
The man convicted under this section in 2010 is, like Gandhi, a man of peace. Dr Binayak Sen, celebrated human rights activist and medical doctor, has worked for more than three decades as a doctor in the tribal-dominated areas of the state of Chhattisgarh in central India, working for people denied many of the basic services that the state should provide, such as health and education.
As a civil rights activist, Sen has been an outspoken critic of the state government and its repressive actions against the armed rebellion launched by the banned Communist party of India (Maoist). The state has introduced special laws to suppress support for the Maoists, raising a militia to fight them. Independent observers concur with Sen on the extent of human rights violations, but in May 2007 he was arrested on charges of working with a banned organisation, based on visiting a well-known Maoist ideologue, Narayan Sanyal, in jail.
Denied bail for two years, Sen was finally allowed out on bail last year. On December 24, a case that on all counts was weak and based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, concluded. Sen was found guilty of sedition and other charges, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment has provoked widespread condemnation from Indian civil society.
Why this case has shocked people's sensibilities has as much to do with the man himself as the state in which he has chosen to work. Sen worked among the poorest and most deprived people in India, the Adivasis. The Maoists have also established their base in the tribal belt stretching through the heart of India. Their concerns are similar; their strategies diametrically opposite.
But for the Chhattisgarh government, the Maoists are evil and deserve no sympathy or understanding. Because they use violence, the response of the state must be equally violent.
Sen and many others who question India's development policy, which has exacerbated the gap between the poorest and the rich, argue that groups like the Maoists succeed because the state fails to serve the needs of the poor. In an atmosphere where everything is reduced to "You are either for us, or against us", there is no place for people like Sen who are fighting for social justice without violence. Arundhati Roy, who has dared to speak publicly about freedom for Kashmir and has spent time with the Maoists to present their worldview, also narrowly escaped sedition charges earlier this year.
The judgment against Sen also reveals the extent to which paranoia and political bias in a state can affect the justice system. In Chhattisgarh today you would need to be a brave individual to question the state. Even judges in lower courts will not. Sen's supporters are determined to file an appeal and take it to the highest court. But whatever the outcome, the very fact of such a ruling has shocked many. India's judiciary has not remained untouched by the scandals currently being unearthed of corruption in very high places. Yet, by and large, faith in the excruciatingly slow judicial system remains fairly high. Today people ask: if even high-profile people like Sen can be denied justice, what hope is there for some unknown citizen being picked and charged of being a Maoist sympathiser or a terrorist?
A life term for Binayak Sen under a law used by the British against Gandhi has shocked my country (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/28/binayak-sen-india-british-gandhi) By Kalpana Sharma | The Guardian
More than 150 years ago, the British introduced a law in India designed to check rebellious natives. In 2010 this law has been used by an independent India to check activists who question government policy.
Section 124A of the Indian penal code was introduced in 1870 by the British to deal with sedition. It was later used to convict Mahatma Gandhi. In his statement during the hearing on 23 March 1922, Gandhi said, "The section under which Mr Banker [a colleague in non-violence] and I are charged is one under which mere promotion of disaffection is a crime. I have studied some of the cases tried under it, and I know that some of the most loved of India's patriots have been convicted under it. I consider it a privilege, therefore, to be charged under that section � I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected toward a government which in its totality has done more harm to India than any previous system."
The man convicted under this section in 2010 is, like Gandhi, a man of peace. Dr Binayak Sen, celebrated human rights activist and medical doctor, has worked for more than three decades as a doctor in the tribal-dominated areas of the state of Chhattisgarh in central India, working for people denied many of the basic services that the state should provide, such as health and education.
As a civil rights activist, Sen has been an outspoken critic of the state government and its repressive actions against the armed rebellion launched by the banned Communist party of India (Maoist). The state has introduced special laws to suppress support for the Maoists, raising a militia to fight them. Independent observers concur with Sen on the extent of human rights violations, but in May 2007 he was arrested on charges of working with a banned organisation, based on visiting a well-known Maoist ideologue, Narayan Sanyal, in jail.
Denied bail for two years, Sen was finally allowed out on bail last year. On December 24, a case that on all counts was weak and based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, concluded. Sen was found guilty of sedition and other charges, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment has provoked widespread condemnation from Indian civil society.
Why this case has shocked people's sensibilities has as much to do with the man himself as the state in which he has chosen to work. Sen worked among the poorest and most deprived people in India, the Adivasis. The Maoists have also established their base in the tribal belt stretching through the heart of India. Their concerns are similar; their strategies diametrically opposite.
But for the Chhattisgarh government, the Maoists are evil and deserve no sympathy or understanding. Because they use violence, the response of the state must be equally violent.
Sen and many others who question India's development policy, which has exacerbated the gap between the poorest and the rich, argue that groups like the Maoists succeed because the state fails to serve the needs of the poor. In an atmosphere where everything is reduced to "You are either for us, or against us", there is no place for people like Sen who are fighting for social justice without violence. Arundhati Roy, who has dared to speak publicly about freedom for Kashmir and has spent time with the Maoists to present their worldview, also narrowly escaped sedition charges earlier this year.
The judgment against Sen also reveals the extent to which paranoia and political bias in a state can affect the justice system. In Chhattisgarh today you would need to be a brave individual to question the state. Even judges in lower courts will not. Sen's supporters are determined to file an appeal and take it to the highest court. But whatever the outcome, the very fact of such a ruling has shocked many. India's judiciary has not remained untouched by the scandals currently being unearthed of corruption in very high places. Yet, by and large, faith in the excruciatingly slow judicial system remains fairly high. Today people ask: if even high-profile people like Sen can be denied justice, what hope is there for some unknown citizen being picked and charged of being a Maoist sympathiser or a terrorist?
dresses chicago code jason clarke.
sc3
07-14 10:35 AM
There is a lot of FUD being spread around this thread. Let me try to dispel one.
1: Reverting rollover will only benefit EB3-ROW.
WRONG!!. As stated in other threads the spillovers are used on whoever has been waiting the longest. That is the guiding principle that is allowing EB2-I getting the GCs ahead of China. If not it was high time the Chinese priority date becomes current. If we revert back the spill-over utilization, whoever has been waiting the longest, gets the GC first. So stop your FUD.
People dont get sidetracked by the nay-sayers. If you would like to write to anyone, do write. If not anything else, we will at least get to hear back from the people whom we wrote to.
People who are saying "IV does not support it, do dont do it". Excuse me, IV does not run our lives. If we want to help ourselves, we ought to be able to do it. Yes, we should not use IV's name without its authorization, that is wrong.
People who say, I am EB3, but I think EB2s are right (in the sense that they are more entitled, they need to get the visas ahead of us etc. etc), good for you, but dont pull down those who don't agree with you. We have a brain to think for ourselves.
1: Reverting rollover will only benefit EB3-ROW.
WRONG!!. As stated in other threads the spillovers are used on whoever has been waiting the longest. That is the guiding principle that is allowing EB2-I getting the GCs ahead of China. If not it was high time the Chinese priority date becomes current. If we revert back the spill-over utilization, whoever has been waiting the longest, gets the GC first. So stop your FUD.
People dont get sidetracked by the nay-sayers. If you would like to write to anyone, do write. If not anything else, we will at least get to hear back from the people whom we wrote to.
People who are saying "IV does not support it, do dont do it". Excuse me, IV does not run our lives. If we want to help ourselves, we ought to be able to do it. Yes, we should not use IV's name without its authorization, that is wrong.
People who say, I am EB3, but I think EB2s are right (in the sense that they are more entitled, they need to get the visas ahead of us etc. etc), good for you, but dont pull down those who don't agree with you. We have a brain to think for ourselves.
more...
makeup chicago code jason clarke.
logiclife
11-15 10:55 AM
Today's entire column written by Lou Dobbs is something that our dear Lou is really familiar with.
No, its not middle class.
No, its not the illegal immigration or the minimum wage.
And no, its not outsourcing and corporate greed.
Its ...tada..LOU DOBBS.
So today, on CNN.com Lou Dobbs presents : Lou Dobbs. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html)
See, this the first sign a journalist is losing traction and becoming pathetic. He starts talking about himself/herself.
That's why, like I said before in a previous thread, there is nothing to worry about from this guy, he is really George Costanza of CNN, only less funny and a little more portly.
-Enjoy-
No, its not middle class.
No, its not the illegal immigration or the minimum wage.
And no, its not outsourcing and corporate greed.
Its ...tada..LOU DOBBS.
So today, on CNN.com Lou Dobbs presents : Lou Dobbs. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html)
See, this the first sign a journalist is losing traction and becoming pathetic. He starts talking about himself/herself.
That's why, like I said before in a previous thread, there is nothing to worry about from this guy, he is really George Costanza of CNN, only less funny and a little more portly.
-Enjoy-
girlfriend Now, a maverick cop (Jason
logiclife
04-07 01:06 PM
The law makers (democrats) who introduced this so called law to reform H1 are actually trying to kill H1 in the name of reform. They don’t have the backbone to come out and say H1 should be abolished but instead they are taking the back door to kill the H1 through these draconian measures.
You hit the nail in the head.
Instead of getting rid of all H1B employees in one full swoop, this lobby wants to put law in place where new H1s will be mostly rejected due the "Consulting clause" and existing H1 employees will be hit in the head with a 2 X 4 when renewing H1, since the scrutiny and paperwork is the same for new H1, H1 extensions and H1 transfers. Same LCA filing, same I-129 forms.
So instead of immediate purge, this is like getting rid of 5 to 10 thousand each month by making extensions and renewals and transfer impossible for those doing the consulting.
Like the admin said, this is the slow bleed of H1B program where death is slow but not obvious and easily detectable.
You hit the nail in the head.
Instead of getting rid of all H1B employees in one full swoop, this lobby wants to put law in place where new H1s will be mostly rejected due the "Consulting clause" and existing H1 employees will be hit in the head with a 2 X 4 when renewing H1, since the scrutiny and paperwork is the same for new H1, H1 extensions and H1 transfers. Same LCA filing, same I-129 forms.
So instead of immediate purge, this is like getting rid of 5 to 10 thousand each month by making extensions and renewals and transfer impossible for those doing the consulting.
Like the admin said, this is the slow bleed of H1B program where death is slow but not obvious and easily detectable.
hairstyles Jarek (Jason Clarke) and
anandrajesh
01-28 12:16 PM
Why should anybody listen to this guy? This guy doesnt really represent the facts.
The fact is that he is against IMMIGRATION of any form. I am sure he denies the fact that fore-fathers were immigrants and came from a distant land.
The fact is that he is against IMMIGRATION of any form. I am sure he denies the fact that fore-fathers were immigrants and came from a distant land.
shanti
08-11 01:59 PM
http://www.h1b.info/lca_job_list.php?name=CNN+AMERICA+INC&company=cnn&city=&state=&year=ALL
Nice to send to Lou :)
Nice to send to Lou :)
gapala
06-21 09:43 PM
Usually they will give you 3-4 weeks to leave.
What do you mean by they will give you?
The moment your I-485 is denied, Form the date of denial, your stay is considered unauthorized. You may have to leave soon as possible. If you accumulate more than 180 days and leave the country, you will be barred for 3 years from entering US. If you stay more than 365 days, you will get a 10 year ban. From the date of 485 denial till you leave the country, If you own a home, they know where to find you..if you decide to overstay...
Please do not post wrong information..
What do you mean by they will give you?
The moment your I-485 is denied, Form the date of denial, your stay is considered unauthorized. You may have to leave soon as possible. If you accumulate more than 180 days and leave the country, you will be barred for 3 years from entering US. If you stay more than 365 days, you will get a 10 year ban. From the date of 485 denial till you leave the country, If you own a home, they know where to find you..if you decide to overstay...
Please do not post wrong information..
